HD 5715 
.2 

. J625 












<L> Q_ »« rj-' u. -t 'Kjir 3 ^. * 4. 1 O 

’•.o' 1 O,^ °^» *»•■»* A . <J> *’».« ’ ■ ■ o’* 

V % A* .4**. % .* V ^ ' % i£NZS[' ** ' 

*«* -«• V :®:- K -:!§§:* •»:- & 

«. V ti* ** 


* 

<vyv// / *^ r * 0 

i * . * .o 

*» * ’ 

«* jP • 

« 

. aV ^ ; 

v > *; v <<? v , v * 

,w4;*\ e°* ^ # %% " /'< 

" • .•» o* -.^P: >° -v - 


" V^V .... <5, -•• / ..... % '•■* A...... \ **• ,/ .- 

* O J** C ’j^S^hV* ° .<4 * JFidZ^bu , ^ V «* 

•^ O 4 "■' sm - ‘ 


* '”*+ 0 4 : 


p - ^'~*' V T --' y r v 

> ^ . v .:ii*:.. V ** . 


A <> V ‘ A ' ^ ° 4 . *• 

- ,o .■ ■' . *> v «v 

* -* ,j ^* s -*. «,. .vyv- > 




jo* A . 

“ 4 . A 0 ' °°* ‘•^•’ V ’ V 7 ^’ '“- t - 

•■* :J£^: %<f **A :*j||: W :fgp*. 

^ *** *' ‘'A ^<a *'*• *** < 0 ^ ^ '*«' •••*'., 

. . 1 " -» ^6 ^ 0 ^ 6 ° J ^* *_ * ? 0. ^ 


•■' /\ S\ /\ '‘^0/ “•’^R* ; f /% ’-S 

. 0 '%.. _A C' .rfl V °o .0° 


’,* X °-> A . '.' 2 S ^>= A * 0 ^ •' ! ^ l © r .‘ ’-■ 

“♦‘^V V^V V^*/ V 

% /\^;.„\ /'M--% * v .; 

* oy ^ wW ' 

tU .V .t'*A ., 


V A * 

•< 


. : °wW- : £ \ ‘-jiSKs: ''-W . 

A <> *'•. .* 4 . 0 ^ V vfff *'‘ A <> *•*»• a °^ 

, 1 -., 0 ^ % .A . v -., \ s > 0 ^ 

^ S~*T?>Z - y, C . J^5? ^v'. O «A * s at^??y, - TT 0 


A 


£, .^y^' <i ; cv < 

V * o . o 0 o 

> v «> • • C \ 


': \/ x/ sim, \f V -’i 

•• / v^Pv^v™*■ c , / \Ww/ X'-l 

.I'/ °o‘^P^V 3> . V^'./ 'V^P^.f 0 ' 5 . 


^ 4 

o V 

i0 v 






) Tj 


V * • - o • ** ©j. - • » ' * * C 

Aj* > V •»•*. c\ .0 

.A T ^V A * 

v«* • 



M* • A o . V**, 

k * a v 0> * ttu^Hj§r♦ av ^ 

„ 4 <2. V V d* V v 

A A° ^ ^TTV* A 

..CT c ®V * .A . •*■' * * 

c O A* * — 


i V'*~.‘’*A’ “V ... .V 

^p* * * * * ^ %/ 

^ ^ ^v ,v/ ^ k VSffi <£* * < 

'* ^ - vrvf'' A *'o.»A . 0 * ^ ^'TvP* A 

^ ,^ % .•‘JA* ^ f 0* ojv «, **b A % t 

'£m&' -*+. « //^Sirv. ^ .v ^ 

1. v ., 


^ ''. v C^ v V «. v 

<7 'o. »* ,G -O. 

. % rP^.iV. V 



I? 0 .* 


° A / 

• <-> r « ~ "~ vj , *'j»»'] gjjfei • u t* 

; -W3’ : :fSg>.‘ 

^ f 0 ' ^ / % *" , \/ f°° ^ *••■••* 0< v $?* 

’ ••- c\ .0’ ♦ ^ v * * * °- c\, «0 V •71% ^ v *»••» c\ .<y 

> *'••»** .6* 'V A^ ^<7 *'o.»* 4 .0* *b A^ 

^ ^OA »*' * * # ^ ^ % • 1 ' * 4 '&f> ^ 6 0 * * * ^ ^O 0 . . 1 '.* ♦ 

^ a *^0^ ^ov^ : 

' • .Of. * IPssJS^L * 4 o 1 r /^W H • r» , . 

- *^^52!^' ^ .*?- ^ • 

0 ^ C \. 4 '»* 1 *’ ^°° *b '*, m o* <z? °b ‘TTi^ f 0' V. 

~ .O 7 ^ , • * '♦ \> \> O ,0 » 7nL% ^> V 

i*& a ^JTK # a x > .#2 5> • *>> x 1^ i ^rafl\ «» A / 

* • ^ A * y^JSkA • ^ A 



0 7% 


w ; % -'W- A\ °»^W*‘ °-W^ ; A' 

• »* .O 7 ^ o> *<7, V A 'o.\* «G^ ♦TfTT* /\ <* ' 0 ., * 

G (r c 0 " • ♦ A*^ I* 1, ' * * (Jj « 0 * * ♦, ^ t * ‘ ' * * G 0 v c 0 * 

V#V‘ % A vS/ \ : b *3 

• - ^ a> « ♦ • /v . \ v * • o .n > . • • • • . \ . t • o. o 


o vV^, o wvwWv • r^ 

• A %■ °y}w.- A 

A <A '■>..' ,C’ 

. ^ _ i » # - <£ r\^ fl » 



















j)S)-aC. 
*/*» 


The Job Training Partnership Act 
& Computer-Assisted Instruction 




NCEP 

National Commission for Employment Policy 





The Job Training Partnership Act 
& Computer-Assisted Instruction 


Education TURNKEY Systems, Inc. 


Research Report 88-13 
August 1988 


NCEP 

National Commission for Employment Policy 

1522 K Street, N.W., Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20005 
















































ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 


This study owes much to many individuals who provided us with information, as¬ 
sistance, cooperation, and insight. 

The Expert Panel spent much time deliberating on the topics at hand and provided 
us with valuable data (the study’s mandate did not include any new data collection) 
and thoughtful insights. To our distinguished Panelists, we owe a debt of gratitude. 

Officials at the project’s case study sites were extremely hospitable and coopera¬ 
tive in facilitating the field work and reviewing preliminary case study reports. At 
each of the sites, creative and often persistent individuals played a significant role 
in the success achieved by their programs through the use of computers. 

In addition to the TURNKEY staff, two other individuals played important project 
roles. Dr. Arnold Packer, a Senior Research Fellow at the Hudson Institute, con¬ 
ducted several of the case studies and, building on his experience as Assistant 
Secretary of Labor for Policy Development, also took a lead role in developing policy 
options that could result in more effective use of computers and related technology 
in the JTPA system. Ms. Lori Strumpf, Director for the Center of Remediation Design, 
provided a wealth of information based on her extensive work with SDAs and PICs 
across the country. Ms. Strumpf also contributed to Expert Panel deliberations and 
conducted field work for one case study site. 

We reserve our final note of gratitude for Mr. David Stier of the National Commis¬ 
sion for Employment Policy, who helped guide the project from its outset and Mrs. 
Amy Pozzi Howard, also of the Commission, who contributed greatly to the project’s 
Final Report. 

Charles L. Blaschke 


Blair H. Curry 



































NCEPEXPERT PANEL 


Mr. Bruce Cornett 

Division of Employment Security 

Missouri Dept, of Labor/Ind. Relations 

Post Office Box 59 

Jefferson City, Missouri 65104 

Jose Figueroa 
Labor Analyst 

National Governor’s Association 
444 No. Capital Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20001 

Ms. Kathleen Hurley 

Vice President, Education Division 

Mindscape, Inc. 

3444 Dundee Road 
Northbrook, Illinois 

Dr. Randy Pennington 
Manager, Market Strategies 
Apple Computer, Inc. 

20330 Stevens Creek Blvd. MS 36-A 
Cupertino, California 95014 

Dr. Walter Postle 
U.S. Department of Labor 
71 Stephenson Street, 9TGBI 
San Francisco, California 94119 

Mr. John Rumford 

Acitng Director 

Gov.’s Remediation Initiatives 

Winthrop College 

119 Withers Building 

Rock Hill, S. Carolina 29733 


Dr. Joseph Scherer 
Manager, National Initiatives 
Control Data Corporation 
6003 Executive Boulevard 
Rockville, Maryland 20852 

Mr. Bill Speights 
Manager, Adult Literacy 
Education Programs 
IBM Corporation 
3301 Windy Ridge Parkway 
Marietta, Georgia 30067 

Ms. Lori Strumpf 
Strumpf Associates 
1015 15th St, N.W. Suite 600 
Washington, D.C. 20005 

Mr. Mark Troppe & Mr. John Amos 
Job Corps 

U.S. Department of Labor/ETA 
200 Constitution Avenue 
Washington, D.C. 20210 

Dr. Arnold Packer 
Senior Research Fellow 
Hudson Institute 
4401 Ford Ave. Suite 200 
Alexandria, VA 22302 

Ms. Kay Albright 
Deputy Director 
NCEP 

1522 K Street, N.W. Suite 300 
Washington, D.C. 20005 















Table of Contents 


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/i 
INTRODUCTION/1 


CHAPTER 1: 

COMPETENCY-BASED INSTRUCTION AND 
MICROCOMPUTER TECHNOLOGY/3 

CHAPTER II: 

INSTRUCTIONAL APPLICATIONS OF COMPUTER 
TECHNOLOGY IN JTPA/9 

CHAPTER III: 

BARRIERS TO COMPUTER USE IN JTPA PROGRAMS/29 

CHAPTER IV: 

POLICY OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS/39 


REFERENCES/47 


APPENDIX A: 

REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS USING COMPUTERS IN 
JTPA TITLE 11/49 

APPENDIX B: 

CASE STUDIES: 


Methodology/53 

Austin, Texas/59 

South Carolina Governor’s Remediation Initiative/75 

Milwaukee, WI/87 

Gary Job Corps Center,Texas/95 

Phoenix Job Corps Center, AZ/107 

Patterns Across Exemplary Sites/119 

References/125 


LISTS OF SITE CONTACTS/127 





























Executive Summary 


Education TURNKEY Systems, Inc. (TURNKEY), under contract to the National 
Commission for Employment Policy (NCEP), conducted this study of computer use 
in Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) Titles II (A and B), III and IV (Job Corps) 
programs. The project had two principle components: (1) the determination of cur¬ 
rent and potential instructional application of computers in JTPA, and (2) the presen¬ 
tation of policy options that would increase the effective use of this technology in 
employment and training programs. 

The methodology of the project involved conducting an assessment of available 
data; obtaining information from individuals who are knowledgeable about current 
and potential technology use in JTPA; and preparing a base-line report describing 
the current status of computer use in the various JTPA programs. Assisting in these 
activities was a distinguished panel of experts drawn from both the public and 
private sectors. This Expert Panel was convened to review and update base-line 
information, and then to react to barriers impeding use and options to increase the 
effective use of this technology in JTPA programs. 

This study was not intended to be a quantitative survey of computer use in JTPA. 
Rather, the study is a qualitative review of some of the ways computers are used 
effectively in JTPA and the conditions under which such effective use can be ex¬ 
pected to occur. 

Background: The Basic Skills Crisis 

All JTPA programs are designed to assist individuals who are experiencing one or 
more barriers to employment. Until recently these programs usually concentrated 
on barriers related to the lack of specific job skills and work experience or to dis¬ 
crimination. However, as the economy started changing under the influences of 
technology and foreign competition, the nature of available jobs also changed. 
These new employment opportunities have revealed an alarmingly common new 
barrier to employment for many JTPA participants: a deficiency in basic reading 
and math skills. Program experts and researchers are warning that the United 
States is facing a "basic skills crisis" where substantial numbers of youth and adults 
are deficient in basic skills in an economy that is demanding proficiency not only in 
basic skills, but also "higher order" thinking and problem solving skills. 

The Job Training Partnership Act has made serious efforts to confront this crisis. 
In 1986 the Act was amended to encourage the Summer Youth Employment and 
Training Program (SYETP) funded under Title ll-B to assess the reading and math 
skills of eligible participants and to provide remedial training for those found to be 
deficient. Two new programmatic goals, increasing services to at-risk individuals, 



Executive Summary 


ii 


especially youth, and encouraging increased provision of basic skills training, have 
been adapted by the Title ll-A program for Program Year 1988. In addition, begin¬ 
ning in PY 1988, all Title 11(A) participants will be assessed for reading skills. 

The "basic skills crisis" and these programmatic changes are prompting the employ¬ 
ment and training system to provide much more remedial training to adults and 
youths deficient in basic reading and math skills. In doing so, the system has come 
to rely on competeny-based instructional programs, finding, as have instructional 
theory and experience, that a competency-based curriculum is one of the most ef¬ 
ficient methods of teaching basic skills. These types of curriculum are particularly 
adaptable to computer-based instuctional technology. 

Current Use of Computers 

This paper found various degrees of utilization of instructional applications of this 
technology in the four JTPA programs studied. 

• Computers in Title 11(A) are used for both instructional management and com¬ 
puter-assisted instruction and in relatively large configurations or local area net¬ 
works (LANs),particularly when services are provided by large school districts 
or national service providers (e.g., OIC, SER, 70,001). In combination with con¬ 
tingency management techniques, several computer-based systems are used 
effectively in dropout prevention programs, often operated in school environ¬ 
ments by community-based or national service providers. 

• In Title 11(B), computer-assisted instruction is used more extensively than com¬ 
puter-managed instruction with one exception: if a Title 11(B) service provider 
uses computers for instructional management in a Title 11(A) program, a similar 
configuration is often used to deliver the Title 11(B) services. 

• In the Title III Dislocated Worker program, computer related technology use is 
limited to providing literacy programs and skill upgrading in only a small num¬ 
ber of programs, which often are operated by employers with existing technol¬ 
ogy-based systems. 

• Computers are being used to provide at least some education or occupational 
training in over 90 percent of all Job Corps centers. Computer use focuses 
primarily on math, GED preparation, reading/language arts, tool applications 
(word processing) and general computer literacy. 

Barriers To Effective Use 

While the use of computers in JTPA has grown remarkably in recent years, there 
are a number of factors inherent in the complex system which have mitigated against 
more pervasive use. Chief among these are: 


iii 


Executive Summary 


• Information/Orientation: Many employment and training professionals are un¬ 
aware of the potential benefits of using computers in remedial education and 
other functions. Because of the heterogeneity of the system, vendors who are 
interested in designing programs and configurations to meet the needs of the 
Title 11(A) and (B) programs reported difficulties finding individuals who could 
define specific program needs. 

• Funding Constraints: Both Title 11(A) and Title 11(B) face the problem of fund¬ 
ing equipment purchases (with three to four year average lifetimes) out of operat¬ 
ing budgets. Because equipment cannot be amortized, any such investment 
drives up unit costs for the year in which the purchase is made. Such increased 
short-term costs often act as a disincentive to investment, even when offsetting 
long-term benefits are likely. In addition, while there is an increasing emphasis 
on basic skills remediation in the Title 11(B) summer youth programs, there have 
not been any funds specifically earmarked for equipment purchases. There¬ 
fore, many program operators are concerned about trends towards shifting 
limited resources away from programs to help pay for this technology. 

• Staff Development: Although the newer computer technology is far easier to 
use than was equipment only a few years ago, many JTPA staff ~ at SDAs and 
service provider level -- do not have sufficient training to make the most effec¬ 
tive use of their computers. 

• Software Designed for Adults: The lack of computer-aid related technology- 
based programs designed for adults is a major barrier in itself. Adult programs 
should be designed to teach basic skills in the context of work to avoid turning 
off workers who will not admit to deficiencies in reading, for example. 

• School/JTPA Relationship: In the majority of SDAs remediation and instruc¬ 
tional services are provided by educational institutions, most often the local 
school district. It is, therefore, critical that JTPA program designers and school 
representatives agree on the goals of the program before the appropriate tech¬ 
nology can be applied. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

There are two primary recommendations made which would enhance the effective 

use of this technology in JTPA programs. 

• Create Investment Funding Mechanisms: The report suggests the creation 
of a one-time funding approval for a line item for each of the JTPA programs 
earmarked for service delivery and management technology investments. This 
mechanism could be similar to the revolving fund concept used in the past by 
state employment service agencies, whereby investing agencies pay back, over 


Executive Summary 


iv 


time, funds initially provided by the revolving fund. Such an arrangement could 
be administered as part of the National Technology Resource Center. 

• Create A National Technology Resource Center: One of the major draw¬ 
backs to effective technology use in JTPA is the lack of a useful base of infor¬ 
mation on matters relating to technology use. Based upon discussions with the 
Expert Panel, the establishment of a National Technology Resource Center is 
recommended. The Center would have three major responsibilities: a) collect 
and disseminate information; b) facilitate/provide technical assistance; and c) 
facilitate/support software development. 

Among the other policy options set forth are many which encourage more effective 
communication among all of the participants in the JTPA community - service 
providers (including school districts), private industry councils (PICs), state JTPA 
and Employment Security (ES) officials, the Department of Labor (DOL) and 
hardware and software vendors. 


1 


INTRODUCTION 


Education TURNKEY Systems, Inc. 
(TURNKEY), under contract to the Na¬ 
tional Commission for Employment 
Policy (NCEP), conducted this study of 
computer use in Job Training Partner¬ 
ship Act (JTPA) Titles II (A and B), III 
and IV (Job Corps) programs. The 
project had two principle components: 
(1) the determination of current and 
potential instructional application of 
computers in JTPA, and (2) the presen¬ 
tation of policy options that would in¬ 
crease the effective use of this technology 
in employment and training programs. 

The methodology of the project in¬ 
volved conducting an assessment of 
available data; obtaining information 
from individuals who are knowledgeable 
about current and potential technology 
use in JTPA; and preparing a base-line 
report describing the current status of 
computer use in the various JTPA 
programs. Assisting in these activities 
was a distinguished panel of experts 
drawn from both the public and private 
sectors. This Expert Panel was convened 
to review and update base-line informa¬ 
tion, and then to react to barriers imped¬ 
ing use and options to increase the 
effective use of this technology in JTPA 
programs. 

Used primarily in schools and military 
training facilities in the past, computer- 
based instructional delivery systems are 
being applied rapidly in employment and 


training programs. This growth has been 
fueled by a proliferation of educational 
software and the focusing of the employ¬ 
ment and training system on illiteracy 
and remediation of basic skills. 

Insights into the effective use of this 
technology in JTPA can be developed 
only with a basic knowledge of the man¬ 
ner in which computer-based technology 
operates. Chapter One summarizes the 
important elements of this technology 
and explains why this type of technology 
has found a niche in JTPA programs. 
Chapter Two discusses examples of the 
instructional applications in Title II (A 
and B), Title III and Title IV (Job Corps) 
programs. Chapter Three identifies 
general and program specific barriers to 
more effective use of computer technol¬ 
ogy for the delivery of services. Chapter 
Four presents options and recommenda¬ 
tions designed to address these barriers 
and increase the effective use of this 
technology in JTPA programs. 

Finally, this paper presents five case 
studies exhibiting exemplary use of com¬ 
puter-based instructional delivery sys¬ 
tems in Austin, Texas; Milwaukee, 
Wisconsin; the Gary Job Corps Center, 
Texas; the Phoenix Job Corps Center, 
Arizona; and the State of South Carolina. 



















3 


CHAPTER I 

Competency-Based Instruction and 
Microcomputer Technology 


Enacted in 1982, the Job Training 
Partnership Act (JTPA) replaced the 
Comprehensive Employment and Train¬ 
ing Act (CETA) as the primary vehicle 
for federally funded employment and 
training programs. There are three 
primary employment and training 
programs in JTPA. Title II funds 
programs designed to assist economical¬ 
ly disadvantaged adults and youths (16 to 
21 years) in attaining unsubsidized 
employment or improved employability 
skills. A sub-section of Title II also funds 
the Summer Youth Employment and 
Training Program (SYETP). Title III of 
the Act funds programs for dislocated 
workers who have permanently lost their 
jobs as a result of technological displace¬ 
ment, foreign competition, or structural 
changes to the economy. The other 
major employment and training 
program, funded under Title IV of JTPA, 
is the Jobs Corps, which provides long¬ 
term, intensive service to youth, usually 
in a residential environment. 

All JTPA programs are designed to as¬ 
sist individuals who are experiencing one 
or more barriers to employment. Until 
recently these programs usually con¬ 
centrated on barriers related to the lack 
of specific job skills and work experience 


or to discrimination. However, as the 
economy started changing under the in¬ 
fluences of technology and foreign com¬ 
petition, the nature of available jobs also 
changed. These new employment op¬ 
portunities have revealed an alarmingly 
common new barrier to employment for 
many JTPA participants: a deficiency in 
basic reading, communication and math 
skills. Increasingly, program experts and 
researchers are warning that the United 
States is facing a "basic skills crisis" where 
substantial numbers of youth and adults 
are deficient in basic skills in an economy 
that is demanding proficiency not only in 
basic skills, but also "higher order" think¬ 
ing and problem solving skills. In fact, 
experts predict that "between now and 
the year 2000, for the first time in history, 
a majority of all new jobs will require 
postsecondary education. Many profes¬ 
sions will require nearly a decade of study 
following high school, and even the least 
skilled jobs will require a command of 
reading, computing, and thinking that 
was once necessary only to the profes- 
sions." (Johnston and Packer, 1987) 

The Job Training Partnership Act has 
made serious efforts to confront this 
crisis. In 1986 the Act was amended to 
encourage the Summer Youth Employ- 










CHAPTER I 


4 


ment and Training Program (SYETP) 
funded under Title II-B to assess the 
reading and math skills of eligible par¬ 
ticipants and to provide remedial train¬ 
ing for those found to be deficient. Two 
new programmatic goals, increasing ser¬ 
vices to at-risk individuals, especially 
youth, and encouraging increased 
provision of basic skills training, have 
been adapted by the Title II-A program 
for program year 1988. In addition, 
beginning in program year 1988, all Title 
11(A) participants will be assessed for 
reading skills. 

The "basic skills crisis" and these 
programmatic changes are prompting 
the employment and training system to 
provide much more remedial training to 
adults and youths deficient in basic read¬ 
ing and math skills. In doing so, the sys¬ 
tem has come to rely on 
competency-based instructional 
programs, which have proven to be an ef¬ 
ficient method for teaching basic skills. 

Competency-based instruction em¬ 
phasizes student mastery of specific skills 
by defining specific objectives and hold¬ 
ing the learner accountable to 
them.(Rodenstein, 1984) Effective com¬ 
petency-based curriculums share these 
characteristics: 

• the learning process should be 
step-by-step, individualized, and 
self-paced; 

• learning should be based on 
skill attainment, not on time on 
task; and should be flexibly 
scheduled and sequenced; 

• frequent feedback on progress 
and greater accountability for 
learning efforts and outcomes 


should direct the learning 
process; and 

• learners should strive for agreed 
upon goals to enhance a sense 
of "efficacy." (Taggart, 1988) 

There are "natural" parallels between 
the hallmarks of effective competency- 
based curriculum and instructional ap¬ 
plications of computer technology. For 
purposes of describing instructional uses 
of computers, there are two basic types 
of use: 

• computer-assisted instruction 
(CAI), involving "hands on" 
computer use by students for 
the purposes of instruction;and 

• computer-managed instruction 
(CMI), in which the teacher or 
classroom manager uses the 
computer for diagnostic, 
prescriptive and monitoring 
functions, including record keep¬ 
ing to tracking student’s daily ac¬ 
complishments and problems. 

Several characteristics of quality CAI 
software include: "gaining the student’s 
attention; informing the learner of the 
objectives of the instructional module; 
stimulating recall and assessing prior 
learning; presenting learning stimuli to 
teach concepts and facts; guiding learn¬ 
ing; providing information feedback; as¬ 
sessing and evaluating performance; and 
enhancing retention and learning trans¬ 
fer". (Rodenstein, 1984) CAI software 
can be used for drill-and-practice, for 
problem solving, and for development of 
higher order, critical thinking skills 
through such methods as simulation. 


5 


CHAPTER I 


Computer-managed instruction allows 
teachers and other staff to diagnose in¬ 
dividual students’ learning difficulties, 
prescribe appropriate learning materials 
(which may include CAI lessons), 
monitor participant progress, and 
generally manage the curriculum 
process. The hallmarks that form the 
foundation of CMI are: mastery learning, 
which divides the curriculum into small 
units of measurable learning objectives 
that identify the specific skills the student 
needs to learn; individualization, which 
provides the opportunity to learn at an 
individualized pace; and the teacher 
and/or student as manager, which allows 
the analysis of the student’s progress and 
the development of activities to enhance 
the instruction. (Rodenstein, 1984) 

In practice, CAI and CMI can par¬ 
ticipate independently in an instruction¬ 
al environment. CAI can deliver 
instruction, while the teacher uses tradi¬ 
tional methods for testing, grading, and 
other classroom management functions. 
Exclusive CMI programs use the com¬ 
puter for these instructional manage¬ 
ment purposes while the teacher 
instructs with traditional "paper and 
pencil" methods. 

When both are present together and in¬ 
tegrated with one another, the system is 
referred to as a "computer-based 
delivery system". An example of this is 
when CMI operates on a local area net¬ 
work (LAN) in which one computer 
(usually a microcomputer with expanded 
memory capabilities) distributes 
prescribed CAI lessons to microcom¬ 
puter work stations where students 
receive instrucion. Such networked CMI 
systems are increasingly being used in 


both schools and JTPA programs, espe¬ 
cially in situations in which: (1) the cur¬ 
riculum consists of a large number of 
competencies to which a wide variety of 
CAI and other lessons and materials are 
correlated; and (2) the programs are 
designed for individualized, self-paced, 
and often student-directed instruction. 
The hallmarks of these systems match 
those that make a competency-based 
basic skills curriculum effective. 

Evidence from dozens of studies of 
programmed instruction, mastery learn¬ 
ing and CAI demonstrate convincingly 
that using these approaches can increase 
the skills of disadvantaged students. 
(Berlin, 1986) A 1985 study of the effec¬ 
tiveness of computer-based instruction, 
conducted for the National Commission 
for Employment Policy, found that 
CAI/CMI reduces student time in 
mastering objectives and/or results in sig¬ 
nificant gains in student achievement, 
particularly with low-achieving students 
in basic skills areas (TURNKEY, 1985). 
As reported by several national service 
providers and Job Corps centers, JTPA 
participant gains in mathematics of well 
over one grade equivalent for 25 - 50 
hours of instruction are not uncommon. 

A number of arguments have also been 
made by the Office of Technology As¬ 
sessment (1987) for using computers in 
bilingual/English as a second language 
(ESL) instruction; these include: 

• the use of CAI can speed up 
learning rates, a critical factor 
for limited English proficiency 
(LEP) students who have more 
to learn; 



CHAPTER I 


6 


• CAI can motivate LEP students, 
especially where high-interest 
software exists; 

• CAI allows students to "fail" 
privately without shame; 

• the interactive nature of CAI 
provides LEP students with a 
sense of control; and 

• some CAI programs can comple¬ 
ment teachers with limited na¬ 
tive language skills, in locales 
where few language-proficient 
teachers are available. 

Other technologies can enhance these 
computer-based systems. For example, 
recent advances in videodisc and related 
technology can provide new oppor¬ 
tunities in the JTPA system. The num¬ 
ber of videodisc units used for 
instructional purposes in public schools 
has increased from approximately 8,000 
units to nearly 15,000 over the last two 
years. (Instructional Delivery Systems, 
1988) Similarly, the number of videodisc 
education and training programs has in¬ 
creased (from less than 150 to more than 
250) in the same period (MECC, 1987). 
Videodisc use in military and industrial 
training is considerably more extensive 
than in the schools. 

An interactive videodisc system usually 
consists of a videodisc player unit, a 
microcomputer which directs the player 
unit, and a monitor. Videodisc programs 
may include hundreds of thousands of 
still frames or pictures or several hours 
of motion video. Multiple audio chan¬ 
nels provide unique capabilities for 
overlaying different languages to teach 
specific skills in ESL programs. Some 
videodisc programs are designed to be 
used only with the player (not the com¬ 


puter), providing the user with access to 
any one frame or video component 
within less than a second; others are 
much more comprehensive, using the 
computer for automated branching and 
prescribing of materials based on 
mastery test results. Interactive instruc¬ 
tional systems require the student to in¬ 
teract directly with the computer. This 
interaction allows the CMI functions of 
the program to vary the pace of instruc¬ 
tion; select among different sequences of 
presentation; test for understanding; and 
advance accordingly based on the in¬ 
dividual needs of the student. (Office of 
Technology Assessment, 1987) 

Within the videodisc (or optical disc) 
storage family, Compact Disc-Read Only 
Memory (CD-ROM) can now be inter¬ 
faced with a microcomputer to allow al¬ 
most instantaneously access to, for 
example, any page of a 23-volume en¬ 
cyclopedia (e.g., Grolier’s Electronic En- 
cyclopedia). Some CMI network 
systems use a CD-ROM player to store 
up to 2,000 software programs which can 
be distributed to work stations upon the 
direction of an instructor or selection by 
the learner. The most prevalent current 
use of CD-ROM is to access reference 
materials or other data bases. 

The convergence of microcomputers, 
interactive video technologies and 
telecommunications has created another 
configuration, "interactive distance 
learning," which has grown more rapidly 
in public schools during the past year 
than did microcomputers during the 
early 1980s (Blaschke, 1988). A typical 
interactive distance learning system con¬ 
sists of (a) a transmitting studio in which 
a "master" instructor conducts a program 


7 


CHAPTER I 


for teachers and students in remote loca¬ 
tions; (b) a satellite transponder which 
receives the studio’s "uplink" signals and 
transmits them to a "down link"; (c) a 
remote receiving station, either an in¬ 
dividual school or a cable system; (d) a 
classroom in which live instruction oc¬ 
curs which is transmitted to a remote 
classroom which may use microcom¬ 
puter drill-and-practice; and (e) an 
audio or data transmission capability 
from the remote site back to the master 
instructor to provide immediate feed¬ 
back on lessons completed. 

Interactive distance learning is com¬ 
monly used to provide students and 
teachers in remote, isolated locations ac¬ 
cess to quality programming not other¬ 
wise available. In New York state, 
distance learning is one of the State’s 
high priority delivery systems for 
programs for at-risk populations. Dis¬ 
tance learning programs are being of¬ 
fered by several universities, public 
television agencies, and a number of 
private firms (e.g., TT-IN Network). 

Another distance learning configura¬ 
tion is the use of instructional television 
signals to transmit educational course¬ 
ware to individual schools which have ap- 
propriate receiving equipment). 
Currently being tested in Maryland and 
New Jersey, such configurations offer 
potential for reducing the cost of 
software distribution through the use of 
existing broadcasting capabilities. 
Eighteen states and four Canadian 
provinces are members of the Software 
Communications Service (SCS), which 
uses telecommunications to facilitate 
distribution of video segments of 


software for preview purposes to public 
television stations and schools. 

NonaNET, operated by the Computer- 
based Educational Research Lab 
(CERL) at the University of Illinois, 
transmits -- via satellite — 2,000 PLATO 
lesson plans to individual student work 
stations where students receive in¬ 
dividualized, self-paced CAL The 
CERL mainframe computer provides 
instructional management functions, in¬ 
cluding diagnosis and prescription, for 
the remote classrooms. 

In addition, many telecomputing sys¬ 
tems are used for administrative and re- 
lated information collection and 
reporting purposes. Over 40 state 
departments of education currently 
have, or are developing, state-wide ad¬ 
ministrative networks linking the state 
education agency (SEA) with local 
education agencies (LEAs). In the JTPA 
system, a number of similar systems are 
in used on a limited basis, while others 
are being developed by service providers 
to link their state and local affiliates. 

These technologies, especially the 
microcomputer-based delivery systems, 
are beginning to find their way into JTPA 
programs. Chapter Two discusses some 
of these ways these systems are used in 
Title II (A and B), Title III, and the Job 
Corps programs. 






























































9 


CHAPTER II 

Instructional Applications of Computer 
Technology in JTPA Programs 


This chapter reviews the extent of cur¬ 
rent instructional utilization of technol¬ 
ogy in Title II (A and B), Title III and Job 
Corps programs. There are three 
general points to make at the outset. 
First, the use of computer-based technol¬ 
ogy in education and training is often 
misunderstood. There is a tendency on 
the parts of education and training offi¬ 
cials to take polarized views of the effects 
of computers. Some take the viewpoint 
that computers can never be as effective 
as instructional staff and, therefore, are 
not a necessary part of the educational 
process. Others argue that computers 
have proven themselves effective means 
of instruction and should assume the 
major burden of teaching, with instruc¬ 
tors filling a classroom manager function. 

In practice, computers are neither a 
plague nor a panacea. Computers and 
related technology should be looked 
upon as one of many tools available to 
teachers and education/training ad¬ 
ministrators. They should not be the 
focus or guiding force behind any cur¬ 
riculum; rather, instructors should 
deploy computer-assisted instruction 
when the particular strengths of com¬ 
puters are especially called for (e.g., 
repetitive drill-and-practice, student- 


directed branching, self-pacing) by the 
curriculum. 

Secondly, one of the most rapid im¬ 
plementation of this technology is for 
coupling literacy with occupational train¬ 
ing. Although the number of available 
programs is currently limited, available 
results appear to be promising and the 
number of groups developing such 
programs appears to be increasing. In a 
number of sites described in this study, 
creative staff have been able to integrate 
skills in remedial programs into work 
programs (e.g., in the Job Corps) or train¬ 
ing provided by service providers or 
facilities operations (e.g., math instruc¬ 
tion integrated into the design and con¬ 
struction of a Job Corps dormitory). 
Adjustable CAI that can be adapted to 
different situations is most appropriate 
for coupled literacy training. For ex¬ 
ample, a basic skills CAI program which 
allows use of different word lists could be 
used with youth as well as with older 
adults and dislocated workers. 

Finally, the use of computers and re¬ 
lated technology for adults in JTPA Title 
II and Title III programs is currently not 
as extensive as in Title II youth programs. 
Most of the original software in this field 



CHAPTER II 


10 


was developed for children’s use in 
school environments. Until recently 
there have been few incentives to 
develop adult-based instructional 
software packages. In addition, there is 
little consensus among the few experts 
working on software for adults as to what 
technology approach is most effective 
with adult populations. Differences in 
degree and type of motivation, differen¬ 
ces in frame of reference and interests, 
and most adult’s general avoidance of 
school environments dictate CAI ap¬ 
plications that are different than those 
designed for youth. 

In contrast with competency-based 
programs which have proven to be effec¬ 
tive with at-risk youth, other alternative 
approaches appear to be effective with 
adults. For example, several language 
experience-based programs build upon 
and use terminology and functional ac¬ 
tivities from the work place with which 
the adult is familiar. These programs can 
be used in a computer-assisted instruc¬ 
tion or interactive videodisc format. 
Such programs are being developed and 
demonstrated in several interactive 
videodisc projects funded by the Depart¬ 
ment of Labor and operated by various 
groups, ranging from the United Auto 
Workers to Domino’s Pizza, as men¬ 
tioned later. 

Even within the limited base of existing 
adult remediation software, there exists 
very little information on how to use 
them. For example, within the last two 
years, only five groups have published 
evaluations of software which could be 
recommended for use with adult popula¬ 
tions (e.g., the Northwest Regional 


Education Lab in Oregon, the Bemid- 
ji/North Central Consortium in Min¬ 
nesota, Luzerne Intermediate Unit 18 in 
Pennsylvania, the Alliance for Adult 
Basic Education in Nebraska, and the 
Adult Literacy and Technology Project 
at Pennsylvania State University). 

There is an increasing interest in using 
computers for literacy programs for 
adults, particularly in conjunction with 
interactive video technologies. The Cor¬ 
porate Model Program in Austin relied 
heavily on a Steck-Vaughn 100 GED Sys¬ 
tem in its programs for welfare mothers. 
That PIC is seriously considering using 
tool applications (e.g., word processing, 
spreadsheets) in their planned office 
training program for older workers. Also 
in Austin, the American Institute for 
Learning (AIL) program is developing a 
personal budgeting program for use with 
adults in the InfoWindow PALs 
program. In Wisconsin, SER, a national 
service provider, has a learning center 
which will provide literacy training for 
adults, using the InfoWindow PALS 
program; PALS is also the major literacy 
program for LEP populations in 
Massachusetts’ Title III programs. 

However, discussions with JTPA prac¬ 
titioners during this project clearly indi¬ 
cate that technology use with adults, 
while growing, is still quite low compared 
to its use with youth. For this reason the 
discussion below is predominately on 
service delivery to youth, except, of 
course, in the Title III dislocated worker 
programs. 



11 


CHAPTER II 


1. Title H 

JTPA’s Title 11(A) program authorizes 
funding and sets requirements for local 
training services for disadvantaged youth 
and adults. These funds are provided in 
a single grant with few legal require¬ 
ments for particular types of activities 
other than a mandate that the SD A spend 
at least 40 percent of its source budget on 
youth under age 22. Activities may in¬ 
clude job search assistance and counsel¬ 
ing, remedial education and basic skills 
training, on-the-job training, specialized 
surveys, programs to develop work 
habits, education-to-work transition ac¬ 
tivities, bilingual training, vocational ex¬ 
ploration, and the use of advanced 
learning technology for education, job 
preparation, and skills training. 

The Title 11(B) summer youth program 
is for economically disadvantaged youth 
aged 14 through 21. One hundred per¬ 
cent of the funds are allocated by the 
states to the SDAs. The funds may be 
used for remedial education, institu¬ 
tional and on-the-job training, work ex¬ 
perience, counseling, outreach, referral, 
job clubs, and other training activities 
designed to provide employment to 
eligible individuals or prepare them for 
employment. 

In 1986, Congress mandated that the 
summer youth program require all SDAs 
to: (a) assess the reading and math 
abilities of eligible youth; and (b) provide 
basic and remedial education programs 
which, as noted later in this report, have 
resulted in significant increases in funds 
allocated by SDAs to remedial 
programs. 


In 1986, a survey of SDAs, conducted by 
the Center for Remediation Design 
(CRD) as part of an NCEP study, 
reported that 51 percent of the SDAs 
were using some type of computer-as¬ 
sisted instruction (CAI) in their Title 
11(B) programs. A year later, a parallel 
survey of 150 Title 11(A) and (B) "youth 
planners" reported that 70 percent of the 
programs used computers as teaching 
tools and that 75 percent employed in¬ 
dividualized, computer-based techni¬ 
ques (NCEP, 1988). A General 
Accounting Office (GAO) survey, con¬ 
ducted in the spring of 1987 on the Title 
11(B) SYETP, found that 70 percent of 
the SDAs used computers as teaching 
tools during the 1986 summer program 
(see Exhibit 1). While the three surveys 
were conducted at different points in 
time (two of them after the Congres¬ 
sional mandate), it would appear that 
use of computers is increasing in instruc¬ 
tional delivery, especially for youth. 

We should note, however, that several 
knowledgeable individuals, including 
members of the project’s Expert Panel, 
felt that the survey findings should be in¬ 
terpreted with caution. While 70 percent 
of the SDAs reported having service 
providers or programs that use com¬ 
puters for remedial or basic skills instruc¬ 
tion, most experts believe such use varies 
considerably, from one or two computers 
being used for placement/assessment, in- 
structional management, or word 
processing instruction to extensive use of 
networks. Most knowledgeable in¬ 
dividuals felt only a small number of 
providers within most SDAs are likely to 
use computers. 



CHAPTER II 


12 


Exhibit 1 


Delivery Approaches to Title 11(B) Program 


Delivery approaches: 

Taught individually 
Lecture and discussion only 
Individualized, self-pace only 
Both lecture/discussion and 
individualized/self-paced 
Computers as teaching tools 
Instruction tied to work 

Incentives for participants: 
Academic credit 
Wages, bonuses, stipends, or 
other payments 


Percent of SDAs 
1986 1987 


69 

72 

13 

7 

21 

26 

64 

61 

70 

73 

57 

60 

56 

55 

76 

81 


(GAO, 1987) 


A number of other studies support 
these reservations. A recent TALMIS 
survey indicated that only about 11 per¬ 
cent of the responding schools used com¬ 
puters more in their JTPA-funded 
programs than in their regular education 
activities (TALMIS, 1988). A survey of 
microcomputer use in Florida schools, 
conducted by the Florida Department of 
Education, reported that computer use 
in JTPA-funded dropout prevention 
programs was only 20 percent as high as 
in Chapter 1 programs (Florida Depart¬ 
ment of Education, 1988); and computer 
use in Florida’s JTPA programs is con¬ 
sidered to be higher than most other 
states. 

Regardless of the extent of overall in¬ 
structional computer use in the JTPA 
system, it is clear that such use is grow¬ 
ing. Below we describe and provide ex¬ 


amples of the three basic ways this tech¬ 
nology is used. 

Computer-Assisted Instruction 

Computer-assisted instruction is used 
extensively by local school systems, 
small community-based organizations 
and other organizations that provide 
Title II(A & B) services. CAI generally 
consists of stand-alone microcomputers 
(most often Apples) using commercially 
available educational software. CAJ 
software used by school-based JTPA ser¬ 
vice providers is often similar to that used 
in Chapter 1 programs or related instruc¬ 
tion. 

The content areas in which CAI systems 
are most frequently used in Title 11(A) 
and Title 11(B) are reading, math, and 
written communications. In Appendix 




13 


CHAPTER II 


A, we summarized data from ap¬ 
proximately 30 projects (many of which 
use Title II funding) drawn from the Na¬ 
tional Alliance of Business (NAB) na¬ 
tional data base (1984-87) and other 
NAB publications. Of the projects sum¬ 
marized, most SDAs used computer 
technology for such purposes as com¬ 
puter-aided instruction relating to basic 
skills acquisition, computer literacy, and 
for pre-employment training. PLATO 
was mentioned in two of the projects, 
with the CCP system mentioned in six. 
Five projects mentioned CAI but without 
specifying the type of system used. Com¬ 
puter-assisted instruction was also used 
for training in word processing, office 
automation, and computer applications. 
Six of the 29 projects (mostly for Title III 
dislocated workers) mentioned more 
sophisticated uses of computers, includ¬ 
ing training in computer-aided 
design/computer-aided manufacturing 
(CAD/CAM) and instruction in robotics. 

During this study we have identified a 
number of for-profit and not-for-profit 
firms that use computer-delivered and 
computer-assisted instruction extensive¬ 
ly in GED, remedial, and related skill 
development programs and who market 
their services to SDAs as service 
providers for Title II programs. These 
firms’ estimated numbers include: 
70,001 (60 center locations), OIC (25), 
SER-Jobs for Progress, Inc. (14), Control 
Data Corporation (50), Employment and 
Training Foundation, Inc. (6), Job Shop 
(13), Worldwide Education Services, Inc 
(22), and National Education Centers, 
Inc. (50 + ). 


Computer-Managed Instruction 

Computer-managed instruction -- 
either with or without CAI — has become 
an important part of JTPA Title II in¬ 
structional service delivery. A small 
number of Title II programs have 
decided to use the computer to manage 
the instructional process, relying for in¬ 
struction on traditional workbooks, 
printed material, and only minor use -- if 
at all -- of CAI. One such program is the 
Competency Cabinet, marketed by Pace 
Learning Systems, which has an optional 
computer management system operating 
on Apple computers. The Competency 
Cabinet is used in 110 Title II programs 
in Alabama and in approximately 50 
other programs across the country. 

Developed initially to teach basic skills 
at the Draper Correctional Center in El¬ 
more, Alabama, the program has also 
been used in correctional institutions 
that provide Title 11(A) literacy 
programs in Georgia, Kentucky, and 
other states. The program relies heavily 
on contingency management techniques 
and attempts to change the learning en¬ 
vironment of the participant. 

Developed by the Remediation and 
Training Institute (RTI) with funding 
support from the Ford Foundation, the 
Comprehensive Competencies Program 
(CCP), now marketed by the U.S. Basic 
Skills Investment Corporation, is the 
most widely used computer management 
system of its kind in JTPA Titles 11(A) 
and (B) (in over 250 sites). The CCP 
program is individualized, self-paced, 
and student-directed. Since 1983, RTI 
has franchised over 150 CCP "partners" 


CHAPTER II 


14 


who operate JTPA Title II programs. 
These partners — which include regular 
and special schools, postsecondary in¬ 
stitutions, community-based organiza¬ 
tions, and job-training organizations — 
have provided remedial education to 
more than 50,000 participants, with a 
current enrollment of approximately 
25,000. A typical program serves 30 stu¬ 
dents at one time and has an average of 
ten microcomputers. All sites have at 
least one Apple computer; approximate¬ 
ly ten percent have IBM PCs. Other 
equipment includes Sony, Control Data, 
and Texas Instruments. CCP programs 
also have printers, cartridge projectors, 
tape projectors, slide projectors, audio 
cassette players, and a range of 
audiovisual and print materials (from ap¬ 
proximately 80 third-party vendors). 

The Southeast Indiana PIC (Townsend 
Community Center) has developed a 
concept of Zero Dropout and is current¬ 
ly working directly with the public 
schools and the SDA to provide a variety 
of services, using support and materials 
provided by 70001, a national service 
provider. The CCP program is used in an 
alternative school environment. With 
recent funding from the Lilly Founda¬ 
tion, it provides services in an elementary 
and middle school to 60 students. The 
SDA also has established a program 
under Titles 11(A) and 11(B) for 14 to 21 
year old students and adults. Although 
the program was only recently initiated 
(within the past year), participants in the 
basic skills program are showing 1.5 
grade level gains after 60 hours of in¬ 
struction. 


While reflecting different educational 
approaches, all computer managed sys¬ 
tems utilize the computer to diagnose 
and place students in the program, iden¬ 
tify specific materials and lessons based 
on deficiencies, monitor student 
progress, and provide reports on mastery 
testing of lessons and preparation of 
summary reports. These systems tend to 
be used in smaller programs, primarily 
because they are less expensive than the 
more comprehensive computer-based 
delivery systems. 

Computer-Based Delivery System 

Computer-based delivery systems use 
computers, usually in a local area net¬ 
work, for both instructional management 
and delivery of instruction. These sys¬ 
tems are more prevalent in urban SDA 
Title 11(A) and (B) programs operated by 
local school systems or other large 
providers of remedial education. In 
many cases, the computer configuration 
has been designed to meet the specific 
needs of the Title II program, often in¬ 
cluding counseling and assessment ser¬ 
vices beyond instructional management 
and basic skills instruction. 

Even though the computer delivery sys¬ 
tems can be expensive, ranging in cost 
from $50,000 to $100,000, SDA officials 
and providers of remedial education 
programs under Title II have stated a 
number of reasons why such systems are 
advantageous: 

• Independent evaluations of 
these systems find consistently 
that student achievement gains 
are greater than in control 


15 


CHAPTER II 


groups, and time savings of 20 to 
30 percent can generally be ex¬ 
pected in achieving mastery 
levels when compared with con¬ 
trol groups. 

• Many of the systems are relative¬ 
ly easy to operate; hence an in¬ 
dividual such as an instructional 
aide (or peer tutor) who is 
trained in network operation 
can be used to operate the sys¬ 
tem, thereby reducing the need 
for higher-paid instructional 
staff. 

• Most of the systems can provide 
the necessary information on 
student progress and other 
reports necessary for complet¬ 
ing JTPA performance and 
other reports. 

• While vendors often promote 
the technical benefits of local 
area networks (LANs), most ex¬ 
perts and service providers note 
that the use of LANs (in con¬ 
junction with licensing arrange¬ 
ments) can reduce the costs per 
unit of software, provide more 
options for staff, reduce disc 
management problems, and 
provide motivation to par¬ 
ticipants who wish to peruse 
high interest programs on the 
network. 

• Some of the vendors are willing 
to be paid, at least partially, on a 
participant performance basis, 
thereby reducing the risk to the 
service providers who have to 
meet performance standards. 

A number of firms have developed 
computer-based delivery systems which 


are used extensively in JTPA Title 11(A) 
and (B) instruction. Among the more 
prevalent of such systems are: 

Computer Curriculum Corporation. 

One of the first and most widely used 
delivery systems throughout the country 
in Title II programs, the CCC system was 
developed in the late 1960s and sub¬ 
sequently refined for use in public school 
systems, parochial schools, correctional 
institutions, and other market niches. 
The CCC Microhost System generally in- 
cludes 20 to 30 work stations which 
provide instruction in lesson "strands". 
Often the instructional staff is an aide or 
a "classroom manager" trained to operate 
the system. In addition to traditional K- 
12 areas, CCC has: (a) expanded its func¬ 
tional literacy programs for adults; (b) 
expanded and updated its GED prepara¬ 
tion offerings in reading, math, and lan¬ 
guage arts; (c) introduced critical 
thinking skills strands in reading; and (d) 
included ESL language strands (five lan¬ 
guages) for both youth and adults. Of the 
vendors selling "closed" instructional 
delivery systems, CCC has one of the 
most comprehensive set of offerings and 
courses to meet the needs of participants 
in JTPA programs and other at-risk 
youth and adult markets. 

Control Data Corporation: 
PLATO/BEST. The PLATO system is 
another of the more widely known and 
used delivery systems in a variety of 
education and training environments. 
The Basic Education Skills Teaching 
(BEST) program, a recent successor to 
PLATO, has many of the functional 
capabilities required by the Title II 
program. BEST includes programs for 


CHAPTER II 


16 


drop-out prevention, drop-out recovery, 
and adult literacy. The Local PLATO 
Delivery System (LPDS) consists of a 
system manager and an instructional 
local area network for up to 30 work sta¬ 
tions. The instructional management 
system provides individual student 
reports, class records, and other informa¬ 
tion used to manage instruction. The in¬ 
structional software includes not only 
some of the original 2,000 PLATO 
software lessons, but also other vendor 
instructional software. The PLATO 
Education Services Division of CDC 
(which operates its JTPA programs) has 
entered into performance-based agree¬ 
ments with school districts operating 
JTPA programs whereby the school 
district’s payments to CDC are reduced 
for students who achieve less than ap¬ 
proximately one-half grade level 
equivalent gain for every 20 hours on- 
task. In addition to outright purchase, 
service providers may also "lease/- 
purchase" the system. 

Prescription Learning Corporation. 
Another widely used computer delivery 
system is Prescription Learning’s Basic 
Skills Program which is based on learn¬ 
ing cycles involving pretest placement, 
prescription, self-paced instruction, im¬ 
mediate knowledge of results, and 
evaluation of performance. The system 
uses various other media and print 
materials in addition to CAI, and in¬ 
cludes testing, consulting, maintenance, 
furniture, and installation. Its "Har¬ 
mony" curriculum includes math, read¬ 
ing, language arts, and the popular 
English as a Second Language program 
developed originally for use in the Hous¬ 
ton (Texas) Independent School District. 


WICAT Minicomputer Instructional 
Delivery System. This system relies on a 
minicomputer with a variable number of 
work stations, depending on the program 
needs. One of the unique features of the 
WICAT system is that its courseware has 
been developed using an authoring sys¬ 
tem which can easily accommodate 
revisions and refinements and allows 
the instructional staff to develop units of 
instruction that meet specific local 
needs. 

Ideal Learning, Inc. The Integrated 
Classroom Learning System, originally 
designed to provide supplemental in¬ 
struction in math at the high school level, 
relies on a hard disc with 12 to 14 student 
stations. Teachers usually conduct large 
group instruction and then divide the 
class into two groups: small group ac¬ 
tivities and direct computer-assisted in¬ 
struction. This system allows the 
incorporation of courseware and lessons 
developed by third-party publishers to be 
used on the instructional management 
system. 

IBM Corporation. The IBM Principle 
of Alphabet Literacy System (PALS) is 
an interactive instructional program 
which uses the IBM InfoWindow system, 
including an IBM personal computer in¬ 
terfaced with a non-IBM videodisc 
player. It is designed to assist adoles¬ 
cents and adults with reading and writing 
abilities below the sixth grade level. A 
typical configuration includes four IBM 
InfoWindow systems, eight IBM PCjrs, 
four typewriters, and a learning facility 
for up to 16 students at a time. Students 
work in pairs and individually at the per¬ 
sonal computers. PALS is used in 


17 


CHAPTER II 


several of this project’s case study sites. 
The IBM Advance Network is also used 
in several Title II programs, including 
one of the case study sites. In addition to 
IBM "logoed" software designed to im¬ 
prove basic skills, some schools provid¬ 
ing Title II services also use software 
from other publishers interfaced with the 
IBM PC CLASS instructional manage¬ 
ment system. In several of the IBM Job 
Partnership project sites (including the 
Austin case study site), the CCP is used 
for instructional management and is in¬ 
terfaced with the IBM network cour¬ 
seware. 

Other delivery systems used in Title II 
programs include systems from Educa¬ 
tion System Corporation, UNISYS, and 
Wasatch Education Systems. The fol¬ 
lowing paragraphs describe a number of 
effective uses of computer-based 
delivery systems in Title II programs. 

A community-based organization 
(AIL) in Austin, Texas, operates the 
Creative Rapid Learning Center 
(CRLC), which makes extensive used of 
computers in several functional areas as 
a service provider of Title II (A) and (B) 
remedial programs (see Case Studies). 
Another IBM Job Partnership Project, 
in West Virginia, uses both IBM and 
Apple network configurations to teach 
basic skills and GED preparation for 
adults (16 years and older). It was ex¬ 
panded during the summer of 1987 to 12 
sites with funding under Title 11(A). The 
12 replication sites relied on the Advance 
Network and, for the most part, IBM- 
logoed software. The program also used 
ESL materials and software to provide 
instruction for Spanish-speaking par¬ 


ticipants. Prospective administrators 
and teachers were asked to complete an 
instrument which indicated "how they 
felt about using computers for instruc¬ 
tional purposes." While initial results 
were positive, even more positive at¬ 
titudes were reported at the completion 
of the program. SEA officials reported 
significant student grade-equivalent 
gains, using standardized tests during the 
six-week period. In addition to the 
replication sites funded under Title 
11(B), the initial pilot site also established 
classes for school dropouts who had been 
separated from the community because 
of substance abuse or for other reasons 
(often requiring temporary incarcera¬ 
tion) in an attempt to help them re-enter 
the community. Another CAI class was 
establisned in a kidney dialysis unit 
within a local hospital where dialysis 
patients and their families were provided 
instructional opportunities to prepare 
for the GED. 

A New Haven (Connecticut) com¬ 
munity-based organization, the Regional 
Education Service Center, uses com¬ 
puters extensively for both Title 11(A) 
and (B) programs. Beginning with cleri¬ 
cal/secretarial training in 1984, which has 
subsequently been partially funded (65 
percent) under Title 11(A), the program 
has expanded to include a literacy 
program which receives both Title 11(A) 
and (B) funding. In both programs, 
equipment has been "loaned" to the 
project by vendors, partially because the 
Connecticut Department of Education 
does not allow the eight percent educa¬ 
tion coordination set aside funds to be 
expended on hardware. The literacy 
program is targeted on three different 


CHAPTER II 


18 


groups: (a) participants with less than a 
fourth grade reading level; (b) those with 
reading levels between the fifth and 
eighth grades; and (c) pre-skill develop¬ 
ment programs, particularly for adults. 
The literacy programs provided by the 
center are accredited by the school. The 
hardware configuration is essentially a 
local area network which is set up as a 
structured classroom rather than a com¬ 
puter lab. About half of instruction is 
provided by teachers; during the remain¬ 
ing time, students receive supplemental 
CAI instruction relying heavily on IBM 
basic skills software packages. The in¬ 
structional management system is used 
extensively for initial testing, diagnosis, 
and prescription as well as for student 
monitoring, with mastery testing after 
completion of specific lesson plans. The 
center operates under performance con¬ 
tracts with predetermined competencies 
specified in advance by the SDA. In ad¬ 
dition to basic education competencies, 
the program also includes a number of 
competencies related to pre-employ¬ 
ment skills development including atten¬ 
dance, dress codes, developing resumes, 
and related skills. A business atmos¬ 
phere is maintained in all training 
programs. The placement rate for the 
clerical/secretarial program since 1984 
has averaged 95 percent, with significant 
gains achieved by participants in the 
literacy program. In addition, the center 
has also contracted with other com¬ 
munity-based organizations to provide 
specific basic literacy skill development 
services to their participants who are in- 
volved in on-the-job and other 
occupational training programs. 


The West Orange (Texas) Independent 
School District began an in-school 
remedial program for approximately 50 
youth in January 1987, using the CDC 
PLATO program. During the summer, it 
initiated a Title 11(B) program with ap¬ 
proximately 50 other students, using both 
the PLATO LDS and PLATO stand¬ 
alone programs, focusing on basic skills. 
In September 1987, the school district 
continued the Title 11(A) program for 
approximately 20 students who spend 
two hours, four days a week after school, 
in the program; in some cases, peer tutors 
formerly in the Title 11(B) program are 
used. In addition to the PLATO LDS 
configuration (consisting of ten ter¬ 
minals), five Apple computers are avail¬ 
able for diagnostic and assessment 
purposes. The PLATO LDS program 
objectives are linked to the Texas Essen¬ 
tial Skills, the new, State-mandated cur- 
riculum objectives. The program 
includes some third-party software. Stu¬ 
dents conduct their own test score track¬ 
ing and are provided opportunities to 
visit local employers. During the sum¬ 
mer program, students averaged a .5 
grade equivalent gain in ten weeks in 
reading and a similar gain in math. Stu¬ 
dents received two hours of reading and 
one hour of math instruction per day. In 
addition, a local JTPA regional office 
analyzed the WRAT scores and reported 
that the achievement gains in the 
program were "exemplary" and sig¬ 
nificant (at the .01 level) in both math 
and reading. The operating cost per stu¬ 
dent during the Title 11(B) summer 
program was approximately $800. 
During last summer, the district found 
that the LDS network is much more cost- 


19 


CHAPTER II 


effective than the stand alone-PLATO 
configuration. 

The Title 11(A) program for adult readi¬ 
ness and occupational skills in Riverside, 
California has relied on the stand-alone 
PLATO system for several years. A 
primary focus of the program is GED 
preparation for which students are as¬ 
sessed every three weeks using the 
TABE. The program includes extensive 
support related to pre-employment skills 
development and for personal problems. 
It also uses staff who were previously in 
the program to provide instruction. 
Adult participants who enter the 
program with a sixth or seventh grade 
reading level and a fifth or sixth grade 
math level complete the program, on the 
average, in ten weeks, receiving 20 hours 
of instruction per week. The placement 
rate over the last three years has been 80 
percent or higher with a cost per pupil to 
the SDA of approximately $12.50 per 
hour. The actual cost of operating the 
program is significantly less since equip¬ 
ment costs have been amortized over a 
long period of time. 

Over the last two years, SDA No. 2 in 
Florida has used CCC with Apple com¬ 
puters for Title 11(A) remediation in two 
counties. The program is funded in part 
by the eight percent set-aside and uses an 
excellent planning process with rural 
schools. Their goal is 1.5 grade gain in 
reading and math or 2.0 gain in one sub¬ 
ject; 80 to 90 percent have achieved 
these goals. The program focuses on 
critical reading and higher order think¬ 
ing skills. Another CCC model project is 
in Pensacola, Florida, where the Escam¬ 
bia County school district has reduced 


dropout rates from 39 percent to 2 per¬ 
cent in programs using the CCC system. 

Some providers of remedial education 
in the Title 11(A) and (B) programs have 
designed their own CMI/CAI systems, 
integrating software from third party 
suppliers. One such Title II program is 
operated by the Governor’s Remedia¬ 
tion Initiative (GRI), the state-wide 
SDA-contracted provider for South 
Carolina administered by Winthrop Col¬ 
lege (see Case Studies). In 99 high 
schools across the State, there are more 
than 100 computer-enhanced math labs 
and 85 reading labs and instructional 
management systems which operate on 
Digital Equipment Corporation’s Rain¬ 
bow Computers (math) and Apple Com¬ 
puters with hard disc (reading). 

2. Title m 

The Dislocated Worker Program is 
designed to assist workers who have per¬ 
manently lost their jobs as a result of 
technological displacement, foreign 
competition, or structural changes in the 
economy. To be eligible, workers must 
be laid off or have received lay-off 
notices. States are given broad authority 
over who is to be served, how the 
program is planned and administered, 
how the resources are distributed, and 
what services are to be provided. 
Programs are usually established in 
response to major plant closings or to 
uniquely high unemployment labor 
areas. 

The types of activities which can be 
funded under Title III include: job search 
assistance and job development; training 



CHAPTER II 


20 


for job skills in high demand; support ser¬ 
vices, including travel and personal coun¬ 
seling; and early intervention programs 
conducted with employers or labor or¬ 
ganizations to minimize the adverse im¬ 
pact of facility closures. Seventy percent 
of the allocation to the state is to be spent 
on training and related services, which 
includes remedial education, tuition and 
entrance fees, and limited work ex¬ 
perience. 

Title III programs have a number of 
marked differences from JTPA Title II 
programs. Because Title III services are 
often required with little notice, a rapid 
response from the state’s JTPA system is 
essential. The short lead time does not 
allow for extended program planning. 
As a consequence, Title III service 
providers tend to offer custom-designed 
programs tailored to specific industries, 
rather than the more general programs 
provided under Title II. Because Title 
III participants are, in general, more ma¬ 
ture workers, they are usually more 
motivated and more targeted in their 
career objectives than their counterparts 
in Title II programs. All of these 
differences have implications on the use 
of computer technology in the delivery of 
services to dislocated workers. 

For the most part, technology-based 
training systems used in Title III service 
delivery have been developed by private 
(usually large) employers, in some in¬ 
stances working in conjunction with 
unions. JTPA Title III funds are most 
often used to cover operational costs, 
usually in conjunction with state or other 
funding sources. Below we briefly 
describe a number of programs using 


various technologies focusing on dif¬ 
ferent occupational areas funded in part 
by JTPA Title III. 

One of the first and largest of such 
programs, initially funded through 
private, state, and Title II sources and 
subsequently using Title III funding is 
General Motors’ new technological 
training program in Wentzville, Mis¬ 
souri. The program was designed to train 
or retrain displaced GM workers who are 
willing to relocate to the company’s ad¬ 
vanced technology plant in Wentzville. 
Workers in St. Louis, Detroit, California, 
Cleveland, Kansas City, and Saginaw 
were also sent to the Wentzville site for 
training and skills upgrading. Remedial 
and basic skills instruction emphasize 
both theoretical and hands-on training 
with specific machines and use group 
work techniques. Opportunities for 
brief refresher courses were also 
provided. Training and upgrading 
focused on hydraulics, maintenance, and 
welding in the operations of robots and 
automated manufacturing equipment. 
Basic skills and industrial electronics in¬ 
struction was provided through the CDC 
PLATO program. 

The CDC learning center in Charles¬ 
ton, West Virginia has operated a Title 
III program for the last two years for ap¬ 
proximately 25 individuals who were dis¬ 
located because of the Volkswagen plant 
closing. These individuals received com¬ 
puter-based PLATO instruction in digi¬ 
tal and robotic electronics. From entry 
levels of fourth to sixth grades, these in¬ 
dividuals received instruction through 
college algebra. Similar PLATO-based 
instruction has been provided in other 



21 


CHAPTER II 


Title III programs in the past. Eighty- 
one percent of the participants in the 
program were placed after approximate¬ 
ly 640 hours of instruction in electronics 
and 85 hours in robotics. All participants 
achieved a college entry level algebra 
course. The cost per instructional hour 
was $6.75 per participant. 

The Stanislaus County (California) PIC 
Title III program is designed to teach 
basic and remedial skills to approximate¬ 
ly 600 employees of a Contadina plant 
which is planning to close down in the 
near future. The PIC operates the learn¬ 
ing center, which is equipped with 20 
CDC terminals using the PLATO LDS. 
Beginning in October 1987, the program 
provides the following services: testing, 
placement, diagnosis and prescription, 
math or reading instruction, and GED or 
high school diploma courses. The 
project provides on-the-job training and 
job development functions. Ap¬ 
proximately $180,000 of funding has 
come from the state. The PIC director is 
planning to use the LDS in his Title II 
program following completion of this 
Title III project. 

California State University is currently 
operating a Title III program for the 
Foothills Employment Council in 
Pasadena. The target population in¬ 
cludes draftsmen affected by cutbacks at 
Santa Fe Braun, Inc. Draftsmen are 
being trained to operate expensive CAD- 
CAM equipment which costs ap¬ 
proximately $80,000 per work station. 
While over 200 participants are in¬ 
volved, only 15 receive training under the 
Title III program. The contract with 
Santa Fe Braun covers operating costs 


primarily and not the cost of equipment 
which the company has contributed. 
Most of the participants have language 
problems or are handicapped. The 
university developed the program, and 
one of its staff members actually con¬ 
ducts the training at the Santa Fe Braun 
facilities. Participants often receive in¬ 
struction while working in pairs. 

The Human Resources Development 
Institute of the AFL-CIO has recently 
established computer-using Title III 
programs in Baton Rouge, Houston, 
Lake Charles, and New Orleans. These 
programs use the CCP along with a 
variety of Apple, Sony, and Zenith 
hardware. RTI has designed the CCP 
program for use in these sites, trained 
staff, and will provide needed technical 
assistance. The program is open 
entry/exit to accommodate the varying 
schedules of the dislocated workers from 
the hard-pressed steel (Houston) and oil 
and gas industries (Louisiana). 

The Indianapolis PIC relies heavily on 
computers and related technology in a 
number of Title III programs. During 
1986, the PIC established a computer- 
based literacy program (Job Primer) 
which includes five sites, one of which is 
the downtown UPwards site. The 
UPwards location has space donated by 
Blue Cross/Blue Shield and is equipped 
with the IBM PALS provided through 
the Indiana Department of Employment 
and Training Services. This program 
augments existing remediation curricula 
and targets the very low-functioning 
reader (fifth grade and below) who often 
spends a half day at the community site 
and an additional one and a half hours at 


CHAPTER II 


22 


the UPwards site using the PALS equip¬ 
ment. It also provides remediation and 
training in reading, math, communica¬ 
tions, and specific job tasks for employed 
individuals. The use of the PALS 
program, which includes a touch-sensi¬ 
tive videodisc system and the correlation 
of literacy skills with occupational areas 
provided by local employers, appears to 
be effective. Individuals come to the site 
either as a result of self-referral or 
employer referral. Approximately ten 
percent of the participants in the newly 
organized program are classified as dis¬ 
located workers. During the current 
year, the program has served ap¬ 
proximately 200 individuals, of which 65 
positive terminations have occurred to 
date. 

Since the early 1980s, the South 
Carolina Technical Education Center 
(TEC) has provided a number of skills 
training and continuing education 
programs in a range of technical dis¬ 
ciplines funded under JTPA Title III. 
Organized as a state-wide network, the 
TEC colleges have developed certificate 
programs for more than 60 businesses in 
fields such as data processing, nurse 
aides, retail sales, carpentry, and 
electronic machine operation. In some 
instances, training takes place at com¬ 
pany sites, while in others it occurs at the 
participating college. Advisors from 
"high tech" industries have assisted col¬ 
lege resource centers in developing 
training curriculum. 

A comprehensive dislocated worker 
program involving state and county 
governments, unions, and a variety of 
small businesses was established in the 


early 1980s in Niagara County, New 
York. The program’s focus is on in¬ 
dividuals aged 35 to 50 (many of whom 
are minorities) whose unemployment 
benefits have been expired for at least six 
months. Vocational skills, coupled with 
computer-assisted instruction for 
remedial education, are provided, as are 
pre-employment skills development, 
vocational counseling, and job clubs. 
Placement priorities are given to area 
small businesses. 

A major dislocated worker training 
program has been established under the 
aegis of the Allegheny County (Pit¬ 
tsburgh, Pennsylvania) Community Col¬ 
lege. The program builds on a dislocated 
worker’s former skills, matching them to 
skills in high-demand occupational 
areas, and provides training focused on 
the participant’s deficient skills. The 
range of course offerings includes GED 
preparation and full two-year programs 
in computer science or engineering. 

In addition to projects using different 
technologies as a method and/or the ob¬ 
ject of training, there are a number of 
single-application, technology-based 
programs and packages that can be use¬ 
ful to Title III service providers. 

The Secretary of Labor recently an¬ 
nounced funding of five interactive 
videodisc projects. Two of these are cur¬ 
rently pilot testing the use of two existing 
interactive videodisc programs -- 
SKILLPAC, "English for Industry", and 
PALs -- to teach English as a second lan¬ 
guage to adults. The other projects in¬ 
volve the United Auto Workers (Ford 
Motor Company and General Motors) 


23 


CHAPTER II 


and Domino’s Pizza Distribution Com¬ 
pany. 

The SKILLPAC has also been used with 
Title III programs for displaced shoe 
workers in Massachusetts. Preliminary 
results indicate that the SKILLPAC 
software has been accepted by Por¬ 
tuguese and Spanish-speaking par¬ 
ticipants and that the course can be 
effective in teaching listening/speaking 
skills. The program is operated locally by 
the Massachusetts Industrial Services 
Program (ISP), who contracted directly 
with Interactive Training, Inc., the 
developer of the interactive videodisc 
program. 

3. JOB CORPS 

Funded under Title IV(B), the Job 
Corps is an employment and training 
program for economically disadvantaged 
14 to 22 year old youth. The Corps dif¬ 
fers from Title II and III programs in two 
principle ways. First, the Job Corps is a 
nationally administered program, with a 
much more hierarchical and uniform ad¬ 
ministrative structure. Programmatical¬ 
ly, this means that centers with similar 
programs operate through the use of na¬ 
tionally developed manuals, guides and 
procedures. This administrative unifor¬ 
mity has led to a relatively more stable 
program in terms of types and numbers 
of participants served. 

Second, the Job Corps is designed for 
youth who need "intensive programs of 
education, vocational training, work ex¬ 
perience, counseling and other ac¬ 
tivities." (Sec. 421) Over 100 Job Corps 
sites are residential centers, where the 


live-in environment facilitates the 
delivery of services described in part by 
this recent Job Corps RFP: 

"Job Corps has adopted a com¬ 
prehensive, multilevel, self-paced 
placement and mastery-test- 
directed approach in an open-entry 
and open-exit individualized learn¬ 
ing system. It is comprised of Job 
Corps tests and learning objectives 
and off-the-shelf instructional 
materials. Component programs 
include reading, mathematics, high 
school equivalency preparation, 
world of work (employability) skills, 
and health and hygiene instruction. 
Additional academic areas for 
which objectives have been defined 
and for which courseware is sought, 
are an advanced academic, pre-col¬ 
lege level program targeted on the 
College Level Entrance Placement 
test (CLEP) and a functional com¬ 
petencies high school level 
program. A separate vocational 
program complements the 
academic of basic educational cour¬ 
ses noted." 

Computers are being used within the 
Job Corps in a number of innovative 
ways. A survey conducted by the Nation¬ 
al Job Corps Office in 1985 found that, at 
that time, approximately 60 percent of 
the Job Corps Centers were using at least 
one computer for computer-assisted in¬ 
struction or other educational activities. 
Job Corps officials estimate that over 90 
percent of the centers currently use one 
or more microcomputers for instruction. 
This survey also found that approximate¬ 
ly 80 percent of the Job Corps centers 


CHAPTER II 


24 


used computers for word processing, 
either in normal operations or for train¬ 
ing purposes. 

A number of computer-based con¬ 
figurations are being used in Job Corps 
centers. The Gary Job Corps Center 
(San Marcos, Texas), operated by the 
Texas Education Foundation (TEF), 
currently uses a computer learning cen¬ 
ter which services between 300 and 400 
participants. The network configuration 
is a University of Illinois "Cluster 
Program" similar to the PLATO system 
used previously but discontinued be¬ 
cause of its high on-line telecom¬ 
munication costs. The Cluster Program 
includes 130 lessons, previously taught 
manually, which have been 
modified/programmed for use on a 
Motorola computer. CAI programs in 
reading, math, and GED (readiness and 
grammar) supplement traditional Job 
Corps workbooks and materials, with les¬ 
sons correlated by levels to the 1977 Job 
Corps workbooks. The diagnos¬ 
tic/prescriptive capability of the reading 
Cluster Program, as refined over time, is 
considered by some to be unique to the 
Job Corps. One of the five staff members 
who operate the computer learning cen¬ 
ter at Gary, discussed later, actively par¬ 
ticipated in reviewing courseware for the 
Job Corps evaluation project, and 
trained other Job Corps staff in im¬ 
plementing CAI programs. The center 
has also conducted evaluations and field- 
test validations of commercial software. 
Center officials are planning to expand 
the use of computers to such instruction¬ 
al management functions as monitoring 
student progress, diagnosis of deficien¬ 


cies, and prescription of remediation, 
(see Case Studies) 

Unlike the Gary center, the Phoenix 
(Arizona) Job Corps Center, operated by 
Teledyne Corporation, has a variety of 
computer-based programs that are used 
in specific areas. A small local area net¬ 
work operating on Commodore com¬ 
puters is used to provide remedial 
instruction in mathematics. Center staff 
have programmed the Job Corps instruc¬ 
tional management system on the local 
area network and, using a Scantron scan¬ 
ner, provide opportunities for automated 
diagnosis, prescription, and student 
progress monitoring. The center also has 
a Control Data Corporation PLATO 
program operational on a network to 
provide supplemental reading instruc¬ 
tion and test review for more advanced 
Corps members. The center also uses 
stand-alone Apple computers for a 
variety of functions, including remedia¬ 
tion for limited English-proficient par¬ 
ticipants. Center staff plan to use the 
stand-alone Apple computers in the fu¬ 
ture for developing higher order thinking 
skills. Computers are also used exten¬ 
sively in test scoring; tests are ad¬ 
ministered to participants every 90 days. 
For math students, reports are generated 
with item skill analyses and provided to 
instructors within described CAI sup¬ 
plemental, remedial, or other traditional 
lesson plans. Computer-based scoring 
diagnosis and prescription does not cur¬ 
rently occur with reading. 

The Jacksonville (Florida) Job Corps 
Center, also operated by Teledyne Cor¬ 
poration, is a small center with ap¬ 
proximately 250 participants. The GED 


25 


CHAPTER II 


instructional software is based on Job 
Corps workbooks and manuals and is 
used as a substitute, where appropriate, 
for traditional materials. Officials plan 
to expand the math and reading program 
beyond the GED (level ten) in the near 
future. They also plan to purchase the 
McGraw-Hill Instructional Manage¬ 
ment System and a scanner to automate 
the test scoring, diagnosis, and prescrip¬ 
tion functions in the GED program. The 
evaluation project is being conducted in 
a computer lab with ten Apple com¬ 
puters. 

The Wolf Creek (Oregon) Conserva¬ 
tion Corps Center, operated by the 
Forest Service/Department of Agricul¬ 
ture (under an interagency agreement 
with DOL), is using computers in 
selected areas and exploring use in 
others. The center has established a 
computer learning lab which provides 
computer literacy to all participants and 
instruction in programming for students 
with interest in the area. Computers are 
also used for CAI instruction in math, 
language arts, reading, GED prepara¬ 
tion, and development of writing skills. 
Center officials are also exploring 
(through hands-on use) computer as¬ 
sisted design (CAD) and a number of 
data base and tool applications. In addi¬ 
tion to the Apple computers used for 
CAI and tool applications, the center is 
also planning to acquire Macintosh com¬ 
puters, to be used for administration and 
instructional management purposes and 
to interface with a proposed Data 
General Management Information Sys¬ 
tem planned for implementation in the 
near future. Center officials are ex¬ 
tremely interested in purchasing an in¬ 


structional management system which is 
technically and philosophically designed 
to meet the specific diagnostic, prescrip¬ 
tive, and reporting specifications re¬ 
quired in Job Corps operations. Center 
officials feel that the availability of an ef¬ 
fective instructional management system 
will allow the center to structure existing 
commercial software (which is designed 
primarily for group instruction) for in¬ 
dividual, self-paced instruction. 

A pilot program funded by the national 
DOL office is the Penobscot (Maine) Job 
Corps Center, operated by the Training 
and Development Corporation which 
also operates another Job Corps center 
and other JTPA programs in the Nor¬ 
theast. The program is using a refined 
and expanded version of the CCP to 
teach basic education (rather than GED 
preparation) and traditional Job Corps 
math and reading. Six teachers are in¬ 
volved, working in pairs with groups of 15 
to 25 students. Four computers are used 
to implement the refined CCP manage¬ 
ment system, while six computers are 
used to deliver supplemental instruction 
in three different locations. Apple, Sony, 
and CDC hardware systems are used. 
The CCP program has an expanded 
capability for the writing portion of the 
GED (in anticipation of the new GED 
version) and expanded materials 
references for reading. Generally, be¬ 
cause of the pilot nature of the program, 
instructional staff have greater flexibility 
to focus on individual student needs 
depending on projected career path (e.g., 
post secondary education, employment). 

As an outgrowth of the steadily increas¬ 
ing use of computers in Job Corps 


CHAPTER II 


26 


centers, the National Job Corps office 
has undertaken an extensive evaluation 
of such computer use. This CAI evalua¬ 
tion project, currently being conducted 
in ten sites, has several objectives: 

• to determine whether a com¬ 
puter-assisted program of basic 
education in the Job Corps is 
more effective in raising student 
academic levels than the current 
unassisted paper-and-pencil 
program; 

• to determine the relative cost- 
effectiveness of using CAI in the 
Job Corps; and 

• to identify the principal deter¬ 
minants of the variation in out¬ 
comes between the CAI 
program and the paper-and-pen¬ 
cil program. 

Several important design features of the 
evaluation project are noteworthy. First, 
the ten centers were selected randomly 
within cells defined by geographic loca¬ 
tion, average entry reading levels of Job 
Corps members served, and center 
operators. Second, sample enrollees at 
each center are assigned to treatment 
(CAI) and control (paper-and-pencil) 
groups at random in order to minimize 
selection biases. Approximately 2,500 
enrollees are participating in proportion 
to the enrollments at each of the centers. 
Third, the TABE test is being ad¬ 
ministered to evaluate Corps member’s 
progress. The period of observation will 
be approximately ten months. 

The courseware selection process was 
very lengthy, involving knowledgeable 
Job Corps center staff across the country. 


Listed in Exhibit 3, these publishers in¬ 
clude both traditional educational 
software publishers and publishers 
whose orientation is specifically toward 
Job Corps objectives. It is noteworthy 
that two of the publishers -- Courses by 
Computers and Hartley Courseware -- 
supply software developed, in part, by 
developers who were involved in 
developing some of the original Job 
Corps materials (such as the PLATO 
Math Program and Westinghouse 
Learning Corporation Project Plan) 
during the late 1960s and early 1970s. 

Exhibit 2 

Publishers for Job Corps 
Microcomputer CAI Project 

Hartley 

HRM 

BLS 

Instructivision 
ComputerAge Education 
Krell 

Continental Press 
MCE 

Courses By Computers 

Regents 

GAMCO 

South West Ed. Psych. 

Houghton-Mifflin 

One of the participating sites is the 
Clearfield (Utah) Job Corps Center, 
operated by Management Training Cor¬ 
poration. This center is using prescribed 
software on Apple computers, which 
were provided at no cost to the center for 
its participation. In the experimental 
CAI group, the typical student spends 


27 


CHAPTER II 


about one-fourth of his or her class time 
receiving instruction in a CAI mode and 
the remaining time with the traditional 
workbook lessons currently used in the 
program. One of the unique features of 
this center is that it has been designated 


as an alternative school for potential 
dropouts by the Utah Department of 
Education. All but one of the participat¬ 
ing centers are using computer con¬ 
figurations which are integrated into 
classroom activities. 








29 


CHAPTER ffl 

Barriers To Computer Use 


While the use of computers in JTPA has 
grown remarkably in recent years, there 
are a number of factors inherent in the 
complex system which have mitigated 
against more pervasive use. Based upon 
discussions with the Expert Panel and 
others with an acknowledged under¬ 
standing of computer use in service 
delivery, we have identified a series of 
barriers to effective computer use. In the 
discussions which follow, we describe 
briefly these barriers for the three prin¬ 
cipal JTPA programs. The reader should 
note that many of the barriers identified 
under Title II may be equally applicable 
to Title III or Job Corps programs as well. 

1. TITLE n BARRIERS 

As the largest and most diverse of the 
JTPA programs being discussed, Title II 
faced the greatest number of obstacles to 
effective computer use for service 
delivery. 

Information/Orientation 

Many SDAs and PICs are unaware of 
the potential benefits of using computers 
in remedial education and other SDA 
functions. Most rely heavily on advice 
from local school district staff and, 
without knowledge, many SDA decision 
makers are intimidated by computers. 


Many PIC officials and staff have ex¬ 
pressed a need for information which: 
(1) provides details on the myriad ap¬ 
plications of computers in a Title II 
program; (2) summarizes the effective¬ 
ness of different computer-based con¬ 
figurations for in-school, out-of-school, 
GED, adult, and other programs under 
Title II; (3) evaluates information about 
specific software packages and assess¬ 
ment/placement system which could be 
used in both Title 11(A) and 11(B) 
programs; and (4) describes vendor 
policies on hardware and software (e.g., 
networks, licenses). 

Many hardware and software providers 
also expressed the need for information 
about the JTPA system, particularly Title 
II programs. During a meeting of the 
Software Publishers Association in Oc¬ 
tober 1987, only five of the 65 leading 
education software publishers indicated 
they knew anything about JTPA. Be¬ 
cause of the heterogeneity of the system, 
vendors who are interested in designing 
programs and configurations to meet the 
needs of the Title 11(A) and (B) programs 
reported difficulties finding individuals 
who could define specific program 
needs. Several hardware vendors, who 
were interested in providing discounts 
(up to 40 percent) similar to those 
provided to school districts, felt the need 






CHAPTER III 


30 


for lists of approved (by state or local 
JTPA officials) service providers who 
could be given such educational dis¬ 
counts without creating legal problems. 

School/JTPA Relationship 

In the majority of SDAs remediation 
and instructional services are provided 
by educational institutions, most often 
the local school district. Naturally, the 
design of the educational component 
would be shared with, or at least in¬ 
fluenced by, representatives of the 
school district. It is, therefore, critical 
that JTPA program designers and school 
representatives agree on the goals of the 
program before the appropriate technol¬ 
ogy can be applied. 

The GAO study found that, in about a 
quarter of the SDAs, there are conflict¬ 
ing mind-sets which, in some cases, 
reduce the probability of computer use, 
particularly for remedial programs. For 
example, some SDA/PIC officials feel 
that local school districts have failed to 
provide adequate education, especially 
for at-risk students, resulting in the need 
for Title II in-school and out-of-school 
remedial programs. These people 
believe that, if the schools are to provide 
Title II services, they should provide an 
alternative service delivery to what they 
are currently doing inadequately in the 
regular school program (e.g., Chapter 1). 
The alternative often proposed is com¬ 
puter-based instruction. 

On the other hand, some school offi¬ 
cials, particularly those whose JTPA 
funding levels are significantly less than 
under CETA, feel that the requirements 


of performance-based contracts for 
producing basic skills achievement 
results are too narrow and believe that 
Chapter 1 programs which might attempt 
to develop "higher order of thinking 
skills" should be included in the Title II 
program, particularly for potential 
dropouts. These disagreements over 
Title II remedial education program 
designs often result in lengthy negotiat¬ 
ing processes over the selection of 
specific computer systems and software 
to be used for Title II programs. Where 
this process has been effective (e.g., 
South Carolina), successful programs 
have evolved over time. 

Funding Level 

The impact of funding and changes in 
funding levels in the Title 11(A) program 
on computer use is difficult to ascertain. 
No recent study similar to the GAO 
report on Title 11(B) exists. Discussions 
with service providers and SDA officials 
who use computers to deliver basic skills, 
remedial literacy, dropout prevention, 
and related services indicate that chan¬ 
ges in funding levels have a less serious 
impact in Title 11(A) for a number of 
reasons. Computer-using service 
providers report that additional sources 
of funding -- such as the eight percent set- 
aside, foundation grants, state-funded 
programs, vendor "equipment loan 
partnerships", etc.-were available to 
cushion the impact of reduction in Title 
11(A) allocations. This is especially true 
of the 8% set-aside which has been used 
often as a source of funding for this tech¬ 
nology. They also indicated that firms 
were more likely to provide "on-loan 
equipment" for Title 11(A) than for Title 


31 


CHAPTER III 


11(B) programs because of Title II(A)’s 
year-round operation. Some service 
providers indicated that Title 11(A) in¬ 
school programs to prevent dropouts, for 
example, which used effective computer- 
based programs, were easier "to sell" to 
the school district and, hence, provided 
more readily in-kind and financial sup¬ 
port from the district. 

The same is not true for Title 11(B) 
programs. The GAO estimated that, be¬ 
tween 1986 and 1987, funds allocated to 
Title 11(B) remedial services would in¬ 
crease from $36.7 million to $67.2 mil¬ 
lion and increase from five to 12 percent 
of the total Title 11(B) program. In the 
average SDA, approximately $57,000 
was allocated to the 11(B) program to 
serve approximately 120 youths. For ap¬ 
proximately one-fourth of the SDAs, the 
Title 11(B) allocation per youth was as lit¬ 
tle as $200, while for another fourth, it 
was as much as $1,200 per youth. The 
average funding level for remediation 
per youth in 1986 was $773 and in 1987 
anticipated to be $677. A recent study of 
network computer delivery systems 
found the cost to be approximately $1.20 
per hour per student (CATE, 1986). If 
one uses the GAO figure of 12 hours per 
week spent on remediation peryouth and 
assumes the summer program operates 
for 12 weeks, then the per-youth require¬ 
ment for hardware and software would 
be approximately $228, or approximate¬ 
ly 40 percent of the total Title 11(B) fund¬ 
ing allocation for remediation. Given 
this situation, it is clear that funds 
provided under the Title 11(B) program 
are not sufficient to cover all of the costs 
of computer-based delivery systems and 
that such programs would in most cases, 


have to be operated year round or have 
additional sources of revenue to justify 
investments by service providers. 

Both Title 11(A) and Title 11(B) face the 
problem of funding equipment pur¬ 
chases (with three to four year average 
lifetimes) out of operating budgets. Be¬ 
cause equipment cannot be amortized, 
any such investment drives up unit costs 
for the year in which the purchase is 
made. Such increased short-term costs 
often act as a disincentive to investment, 
even when offsetting long-term benefits 
are likely. 

The importance of these funding issues 
may be amplified because six percent ad¬ 
ministrative funding can no longer be 
used for equipment purchases as it once 
was. 

Funding Uncertainty/Timing 

The GAO report found that ap¬ 
proximately 60 percent of SDAs felt that 
uncertainty regarding Title 11(B) funding 
levels was a problem in developing 
remedial education plans. More than 40 
percent felt that uncertainty about when 
funds would arrive was also a problem. 

While the funding of Title 11(A) 78% 
programs is fairly consistent both in 
amount and timing, Title 11(B) programs 
face a much less stable funding environ¬ 
ment. Congressional and administrative 
delays can result in funds for summer 
youth programs being made available too 
late for coordinated equipment pur¬ 
chases. Similarly, the distribution of 
eight percent funding is subject to 




CHAPTER III 


32 


decisions at state level which are often 
not made in a timely manner. 

Staff Development 

Although the newer computer technol¬ 
ogy is far easier to use than was equip¬ 
ment only a few years ago, many JTPA 
staff — at SDAs and service providers — 
do not have sufficient training to make 
the most effective use of their com¬ 
puters. Specifically, service delivery staff 
do not, in general, have sufficient skills 
for integrating CAI or CMI into educa¬ 
tion and training curricula nor are they 
fully capable of establishing or operating 
the networks used in computer-based 
delivery systems. 

Perhaps more critical than the lack of 
highly technical expertise is the general 
lack of computer awareness by many 
JTPA staff. Improved staff training is 
needed to eliminate the underlying 
"computerphobia" evident in some staff 
and to reinforce the notion that, rather 
than a burden, computers are a valuable 
tool. 

Performance-Based Contracts 

JTPA programs operate as a perfor¬ 
mance driven system. Many SDAs 
employ performance-based contracts 
which are designed to withhold the bulk 
of the payment until participants are 
placed in unsubsidized employment or 
achieve some other program goal. These 
agreements call for full payments only if 
stated objectives are met. The inherent 
financial uncertainty, from the 
standpoint of the service provider, is a 
strong incentive for the service provider 


to operate at the lowest possible short- 
run cost. Such conditions are not con¬ 
ducive to investments in computer 
equipment (particularly unamortizable 
equipment) which could drive up short- 
run costs. 

Reliance on Standardized Tests 

A number of service providers (as well 
as school officials, publishers, and re¬ 
searchers) argue that performance- 
based contracts and program designs in 
remedial education, which are based on 
national, norm-referenced, standardized 
test scores, provide disincentives for two 
emerging uses of computers for target 
populations such as dropout and poten¬ 
tial dropouts: (1) development of higher 
order of thinking skills (HOTS); and (2) 
development of tool application skills 
such as word processing and data base 
searchers (Resnick, 1987). While 
several HOTS programs, using a variety 
of software packages, have been success¬ 
ful in demonstrating some gains on na¬ 
tional norm- referenced math and 
reading tests, these instruments do not 
adequately assess development of criti¬ 
cal thinking skills (Pogrow, 1986). Some 
providers feel that the "competencies" 
agreed upon are too low or limiting for 
some participants (e.g., potential 
dropouts in Title 11(A)) and do not ad¬ 
dress important other skills and be¬ 
havioral changes. With the possible 
exception of assessing writing skills, none 
of the traditional national norm- 
referenced tests adequately measure 
tool application skills development, 
which would appear to be critical for in¬ 
dividual success in the information age 
(Hunter, 1987; Resnick, 1987). 



33 


CHAPTER III 


Federal and State Restrictions 

As described in the discussion of fund¬ 
ing barriers above, Federal restrictions 
can have a significant impact on the 
availability of resources for computer-re¬ 
lated purchases. State JTPA agencies 
can also restrict (whether through 
regulation or interpretation) funding for 
computer purchases and use. For ex¬ 
ample, the Act sets aside eight percent of 
the funds allocated to states under Title 
11(A) for use in coordinating job training 
services with state education and training 
agencies. In a number of states (e.g., 
Florida, New Jersey, South Carolina), 
the state education agency has allowed 
SDAs to use 90 percent of the eight per¬ 
cent set-aside fund for purchasing 
hardware and/or software for the Title 
11(A) program. Connecticut, with stric¬ 
ter interpretations of Chapter 1 "supple¬ 
ment not supplant" provisions, has ruled 
that the use of eight percent set-aside 
funds for purchasing computer and other 
hardware for use in Title 11(A) programs 
is not allowed. 

Many experts, service providers, and 
some SDAs/PICs feel that states should 
be encouraged to review existing policies 
on allowable costs and other regulations 
which reduce the flexibility of funding for 
the use of computer-based programs in 
the Title II program. 

Differential Constraints 

The wide range of barriers described 
above constrains the use of computers 
generally in JTPA service delivery. 
There are a number of other factors that 


serve as barriers only to certain types of 
service providers — most often private 
sector providers. To the extent that any 
restriction on provider participation 
reduces the diversity of program offer¬ 
ings available in JTPA, the system suffers 
and the likelihood of effective computer 
use is reduced. 

As noted earlier, many SDAs and ser¬ 
vice providers rely on school-ad¬ 
ministered tests for initial appraisal, 
screening, and, in some cases, placement 
of participants in Title 11(A) and (B) 
programs. The GAO reported that some 
SDAs have difficulty obtaining test infor¬ 
mation from schools. This can be partly 
attributed to different states’ interpreta¬ 
tions of Federal legislation regarding ex¬ 
perimentation in programs using Federal 
funds. This factor is a disincentive for the 
SD A to select as service providers groups 
other than the local school district. 

In the accreditation area, states apply 
different standards to JTPA programs, a 
factor that could have an impact on the 
types of delivery systems and service 
provider an SDA selects. In some states, 
providers have been awarded contracts 
under the provision that they must use 
certified teachers from the school sys¬ 
tem, limiting the range of service 
provider options. 

2. TITLE IE BARRIERS 

While some barriers to use of com¬ 
puters and related technology in Title III 
are similar to those in other JTPA 
programs, there are a number of specific 
barriers which make computer use for 
training, remedial education, and other 





CHAPTER III 


34 


services more difficult in Title III 
programs. 

Lack of Information 

State Title III administrators are often 
even more unaware (and less interested) 
than Title II officials about potential uses 
of current technologies in their 
programs, except when the focus of 
retraining is in "high tech" occupational 
areas. Because of the timing and short 
duration of many Title III programs, typi¬ 
cal sources of information — such as ven- 
dors, journals, and technology 
conferences — are not as readily available 
to state-level Title III program officials. 
Systematic information about available 
technologies and technology expertise is 
sorely needed, as is information about 
how technology can serve a useful role in 
Title III programs. 

Short Lead Time 

The short lead time usually accompany¬ 
ing plant closing and the types of training 
needed creates problems for planners, 
who are usually faced with two alterna¬ 
tives: (1) attempting to find "canned" 
packages which focus on general needs, 
but which might not be ideally suited to 
the needs of individual workers; or (2) 
finding a local service provider who can 
meet minimal service delivery require¬ 
ments. To some extent, the lead time 
problem can be minimized in situations 
where employers, particularly large 
companies with technology-based train¬ 
ing systems, take an active role in support 
of the training and skill upgrading ser¬ 
vices. 


Program Design 

Programs should be designed to mini¬ 
mize installation and implementation 
time, including in-service training. To 
the extent programs are participant- 
directed (perhaps in conjunction with 
peer tutoring), the requirement for cer¬ 
tified staff during implementation will be 
eased. If programs require a highly 
skilled instructor, for example, with the 
complex equipment, the Title III 
program should be integrated into an ex¬ 
isting program which could be modified 
for use with Title III participants. More 
so than with Title II programs, programs 
for dislocated workers require open 
entry/exit to accommodate scheduling 
requirements of participants and the use 
of equipment. The technology should be 
relatively transportable; effective 
scheduling may require movement to 
more than one site in a program area 
after a Title III program has been com¬ 
pleted for use in other programs outside 
the local area. 

An increasing number of Title III 
programs have involved limited English 
proficient participants. Design of such 
programs must take into account new 
delivery systems to provide basic skills in¬ 
struction with these heterogeneous 
populations light of the shortages of ESL 
teachers. Videodisc technology can 
provide the flexibility to serve such 
heterogeneous populations, while other 
technologies such as distance learning 
can, with relatively low cost, use existing 
infrastructures (e.g., closed cable, 
employer-based TV, etc.) for specific 
populations for which resident technol¬ 
ogy and teachers are not available. 


35 


CHAPTER III 


Disincentives for Technology Invest¬ 
ments 

The typically short durations of Title III 
programs provide disincentives, par¬ 
ticularly for local service providers to in¬ 
vest in capital-intensive, computer-based 
technology, because it may be difficult to 
amortize the purchase over a number of 
years. For local service providers who 
traditionally charge tuition, JTPA Title 
III funds usually cannot pay full tuition 
fees, a disincentive for capital-intensive 
investments, especially where tuition 
fees reflect operating costs. In other in¬ 
stances where traditional education and 
occupational institutions are service 
providers, new technology-oriented oc¬ 
cupational training (e.g., robotics, 
CAD/CAM) may not be included in 
courses which can be quickly accredited 
by appropriate state agencies. The in¬ 
ability of participants to receive credit for 
training is a disincentive for some par¬ 
ticipants to enroll. Another disincentive 
for investment in capital-intensive in¬ 
struction is the availability of participant 
time to receive instruction in centralized 
locations, which is compounded by com¬ 
muting and transportation costs. 

Software Designed for Adults 

The lack of computer and related tech¬ 
nology-based programs designed for 
adults is a major barrier in itself. Many 
adults feel that they do not need instruc¬ 
tion in reading and certainly are not in¬ 
terested in attending community-based 
or other programs designed for remedial 
skills development for youth dropouts. 
In virtually all cases, programs should be 
designed to teach basic skills in the con¬ 


text of work to avoid turning off workers 
who will not admit to deficiencies in 
reading, for example. In other cases, the 
basic skill components may have to be 
tied into high prestige courses and topics, 
such as fiber optics, CAD-CAM, and 
other high tech areas. 

3. JOB CORPS BARRIERS 

A number of barriers to expanded or 
more effective use of computers in Job 
Corps service delivery are similar to 
those for other JTPA programs; other 
are uniquely related to the Job Corps. 

Funding 

While funding uncertainty is less of a 
problem with the Job Corps than with 
JTPA Title II, the level of funding avail¬ 
able to purchase hardware and, to a 
lesser extent, software is a problem with 
many facets. Cost competition for Job 
Corps contracts is so fierce that contrac¬ 
tors cannot afford to invest heavily in 
computer-based systems. The budgetary 
process often causes a problem. For ex¬ 
ample, computer purchases may be in¬ 
cluded in capital equipment and 
maintenance line items that also include 
heavy duty and costly equipment such as 
bulldozers and facilities maintenance, 
etc. which, during the budgetary process, 
get a higher priority at regional DOL of¬ 
fices. As a result, most of the centers 
currently using computers for instruc¬ 
tional and related purposes obtained 
their equipment through such special ac¬ 
tivities as the evaluation project, pre¬ 
vious pilot and demonstration projects 
(e.g., Education Improvement Effort 
Project), special approvals by supportive 





CHAPTER III 


36 


regional offices who place high priorities 
on educational reform (Region IX), or 
local resources. Funding levels also limit 
staff training in computer use, which can 
be costly in remote locations where users 
must be trained in distant sites. 

Lengthy Approval Process 

Several officials reported that the over¬ 
all approval process, including procure¬ 
ment procedures, is very lengthy, 
sometimes resulting in the purchase of 
equipment that is outdated. Others note 
that the approval process is so cumber¬ 
some that it serves as a significant disin¬ 
centive for many vendors. In many cases, 
centers are using hardware that is as 
much as seven years old and, due to lack 
of maintenance funds, some stations are 
no longer operational. Moreover, the 
level at which approval must be obtained 
for computer-based education purchases 
varies among the DOL regions, which 
can create planning and related 
problems. 

Compatibility 

A major concern in the Job Corps (as 
well as in many other education/training 
programs) is the necessary tradeoffs be¬ 
tween diversity and compatibility of 
hardware. While technology has greatly 
improved the ability of different type of 
computers to talk with one another, full- 
scale compatibility across brands is not a 
reality. This factor place special burdens 
on Job Corps decision makers to plan 
their technology-related decisions, 
recognizing that any type of computer 
will have both advantages and draw¬ 
backs. 


Most center officials perceive the need 
for a variety of computers in order to 
take advantage of the best software avail¬ 
able. On the other hand, as Job Corps 
centers increasingly implement manage¬ 
ment information systems (MIS), there is 
a tendency toward standardization to en¬ 
sure that the MIS can be interfaced with 
instructional management systems used 
in the classroom. Several officials indi¬ 
cated a desire to use software developed 
at other centers, particularly those 
operated by the same corporation. 
However, in certain cases, incom¬ 
patibility of hardware at the different 
sites precluded such opportunities. 

Software Availability 

Although most centers participating in 
the evaluation project are satisfied with 
the quality of software used in the treat¬ 
ment groups, some felt a need for high 
quality packages in GED preparation 
(especially the new 1988 GED version) 
and ESL. Most felt that, in contrast to 
the current use of CAI to supplement in¬ 
struction, it would be difficult to find a 
computer-based delivery system which 
has the total instructional software 
capabilities to meet Job Corps needs. 
Most center officials expressed the need 
for new or improved instructional 
management systems designed for Job 
Corps use. A recent survey of center 
education directors identified some 
characteristics of an instructional 
management system which would satisfy 
their needs: 

• CAI lessons should be corre¬ 
lated with competencies and in- 


37 


CHAPTER III 


eluded in a computer-based 
directory; 

• the system should do test-scor¬ 
ing and record test results; 

• the system should print out 
specific lesson prescriptions 
based on test score results and 
teacher judgment; 

• the system should allow for easy 
updating, particularly CAI 
software lesson plans; the sys¬ 
tem should also be able to 
record and report on participant 
time-on-task; and 

• the instructional management 
system should be able to be 
interfaced with larger 
mainframe computer for 
general MIS purposes. 

Most of the current instructional 
management systems being used have 
inadequate diagnostic and prescriptive 
capabilities or do not have the memory 
capacity to incorporate adequate skill 
correlations with materials. 


Program Design Rigidity 

Several barriers to effective use of com¬ 
puters perceived by center officials relate 
to program design rigidity reflected in 
Job Corps manuals, guidelines, etc. For 
example, several officials felt that the 
1983 "manual" skill range was too limited, 
resulting in a propensity to teach only 
what is required in the curriculum. 
Several expressed a desire to use the 
computer to teach higher order thinking 
skills not currently included in the mini¬ 
mal requirements. Others felt the need 
for greater flexibility in selecting tests for 
assessment purposes. 

Several officials participating in the 
evaluation project felt constrained by the 
prescribed program design and would 
have liked to use computers for addition¬ 
al purposes and in different ways. Most 
expressed their intention to expand the 
project’s applications after the evalua¬ 
tion project ends. 

































39 


CHAPTERIV 

Policy Options and Recommendations 


In this chapter we describe several 
policy options based on project findings. 
These recommendations have been 
derived from discussions with Expert 
Panel member, SDA/PIC staff, service 
providers, vendors, and other individuals 
knowledgeable about the JTPA system. 
The first general set of recommendations 
apply primarily to service delivery 7 across 
all JTPA titles. The second set of recom¬ 
mendations address issues unique to a 
specific program. 

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS 

A number of the identified policy 7 op¬ 
tions would provide technical assistance 
for programs supported under JTPA 
Title 11(A), Title 11(B), Title III. and Job 
Corps. 

1 CREATE INVESTMENT FUNDING 
MECHANISMS 

Based upon extensive discussions with 
members of the Expert Panel and other 
individuals knowledgeable about the 
potential for increased use of technology- 
in JTPA. it became clear that one of the 
greatest barriers to such use is the 
availability of "up front" funds to support 
initial implementation. 


Most knowledgeable JTPA officials, ex¬ 
perts. and vendors argue that the existing 
procedures bias the system against large 
initial investments in capital-intensive 
delivery sy stems because of: (a) the in¬ 
ability of SDAs PICs to amortize capital 
expenditures: and (b) policies and 
regulations which restrict the use of 
funds for investments in hardware and 
software. A number of experts have 
recommended the creation of a funding 
mechanism for investment in capital-in¬ 
tensive technologv. 

One possible approach would be the 
creation of a line item for each of the 
JTPA programs earmarked for service 
delivery and management technology in¬ 
vestments. This mechanism could be 
similar to the revolving fund concept 
usedin the past by state employment ser¬ 
vice aeencies. wherebv investing agen- 
cies pay back, over time, funds initially- 
provided by the revolving fund. Such an 
arrangement could be administered as 
part of the National Technology 
Resource Center. 

* CREATE A NATIONAL TECHNOLOGY 
L RESOURCE CENTER 

One of the major draw backs to effective 
technology use in JTPA is the lack of a 
useful base of information on matters 





CHAPTER IV 


40 


relating to technology use. Based upon 
discussions with the Expert Panel, the es¬ 
tablishment of a National Technology 
Resource Center is recommended. 

The National Technology Resource 
Center would receive funding from the 
Department of Labor to cover core cen¬ 
ter operations. Additional funding could 
be sought from foundations, employers, 
employer associations, unions, and other 
sources. The Center would be operated 
as an autonomous entity, with a Board of 
Directors representing both public and 
private organizations. Policies would be 
established to ensure continuity of fund¬ 
ing. Management would be selected by 
the Board of Directors. The focus of the 
Center would include computer-based 
and related emerging technologies such 
as interactive videodisc, distance learn¬ 
ing, instructional software systems, and 
artificial intelligence. 

The Center would have three major 
responsibilities: (a) to collect and dis¬ 
seminate information to the various 
levels of the JTPA system and the tech¬ 
nology community (including vendors 
and researchers); (b) to provide technol¬ 
ogy-related assistance; and (c) to sup¬ 
port directly related research and 
software development through contracts 
with appropriate groups. Below we 
describe some of these proposed func¬ 
tions in greater detail. 

Collect and Disseminate Information 

The Center would collect (or facilitate 
the collection of) information, compile 
such information, and disseminate the 
information across JTPA programs -- to 


local SDAs/PICs, service providers, state 
JTPA offices, JTPA officials in DOL 
regional offices, and technology liaison 
officials within national DOL offices 
responsible for JTPA programs. The 
types of information to be collected and 
disseminated would include: 

• Technology-Related Resources: 
Resources including individuals, 
groups, and clearinghouses 
which could provide useful and 
timely information to users. In¬ 
formation could be compiled 
and disseminated in updatable 
directories and on electronic 
bulletin boards using telecom¬ 
munication gateways or an 
electronic network established 
by the Center. 

• Guidelines and Checklists: 

Center staff could compile 
and/or develop guidelines and 
checklists for use at the SDA 
and service providers levels to 
assist in the design of technol¬ 
ogy-based programs and in com¬ 
munication with service 
providers. Center staff would 
rely (to the extent possible) on 
existing guidelines, checklists, 
etc. developed by groups such as 
the National Center for 
Research in Vocational Educa¬ 
tion, the International Council 
for Computers in Education, 
and other organizations con¬ 
cerned with technology use in 
literacy and related programs. 

• Exemplary Programs Using 
Technology: Program could be 
identified on an ongoing basis, 
relying on existing reports and 



41 


CHAPTER IV 


case studies. Project descrip¬ 
tions would be compiled and 
presented in such a way as to as¬ 
sist SDAs/PICs and service 
providers in deciding how to 
replicate (and adapt, if neces¬ 
sary, to local needs) such tech¬ 
nology-based programs. 

• Evaluations of 

Software/Hardware: While the 
Center would not conduct 
evaluations of specific software 
and/or hardware components, it 
would compile evaluations con¬ 
ducted by independent evalua¬ 
tion groups. More than 20 such 
groups now exist as interstate 
consortia, associations, etc.; 
moreover, more than 500 state, 
local, and intermediate educa¬ 
tion agencies conduct software 
evaluations. The Center would 
also be responsible for compil¬ 
ing and disseminating software 
evaluation forms and criteria 
which could be used by SDAs 
and service providers for 
software preview purposes. 

Facilitate/Provide Technical Assistance 

Because technology-related needs will 
vary across states and programs, the 
Center would design and implement a 
technical assistance program based on 
the different needs. It would have a core 
staff of technology experts; technology 
liaisons would be appointed within the 
national JTPA program offices and in 
each of the DOL regional offices; state 
JTPA offices could also be encouraged to 
designate technology liaison individuals. 
In addition to the Center’s core staff, two 


to three regional technical assistance 
centers would be funded in part by 
Center funds (matched by funds and in- 
kind contributions from state consortia). 
The technology assistance and support 
system would facilitate (or provide) the 
following services: 

• Program Planning and Design: 

The Center would encourage 
the use of existing program 
design resources. Given the 
level of need across programs, 
the Center would also provide 
planning and design services in¬ 
cluding: (a) research and assess¬ 
ments with employers to ensure 
that programs meet potential 
employees’ needs to perform 
successfully in the work place; 

(b) development of models of 
different technology-based 
configurations which could be 
used for planning purposes; (c) 
development of model program 
design specifications which 
could be used in negotiating 
performance-based contracts 
with service providers; and (d) 
on-call program design services 
ranging from telephone assis¬ 
tance to workshops. 

• Technology Systems 
Integration: Because of emerg¬ 
ing, sophisticated, computer- 
based systems and networks 
which offer potential for the sys¬ 
tem, there is a need for assis¬ 
tance in integrating technology 
into effective program con¬ 
figurations. Technology integra¬ 
tion services, which the Center 
could provide, would include: 



CHAPTER IV 


42 


(a) serving as an intermediary 
between program planners and 
the technology community; (b) 
identifying components which 
are commercially available and 
assisting in their integration into 
cost-effective delivery systems; 
and (c) assisting in the develop¬ 
ment of RFPs and/or negotiat¬ 
ing with vendors and/or service 
providers. 

• Forums for Service and 
Technology Providers: The 
Center could facilitate, sponsor, 
or conduct forums, symposia, 
and/or workshops. Depending 
on meeting focus, attendees 
could include SDAs, PICs, 
employers, service providers, 
technology providers, and ven¬ 
dors. Meetings would be 
designed to improve com¬ 
munications among all parties 
(through orientation briefings 
and "give and take" sessions) 
and provide opportunities for 
employers to communicate 
projected work force needs. 

• Identification of Funding 
Sources: Center staff would as¬ 
sist in designing programs to 
utilize JTPA funding flexibilities 
and communicate program 
needs to technology vendors. 
Such an activity could identify 
business practices (including 
lease-purchase options and al¬ 
ternative distribution channels, 
and support policies) which ven¬ 
dors might consider to accom¬ 
modate the unique organization¬ 
al structures and constraints of 
the JTPA system. 


• Monitoring of Advanced 

Technologies: Center staff could 
continually monitor technology 
advances which could be used in 
JTPA programs and disseminate 
information about these advan¬ 
ces to planners, technology 
liaison staff, and service 
providers. 

Facilitate/Support Software 
Development 

The Center would also have contracting 
authority to support (or facilitate support 
of) the development of software applica¬ 
tions and other development activities 
designed to meet some of the unique 
unmet needs of JTPA service delivery. 
For example, the Center could serve a 
catalytic role in the creation of consortia 
of potential users with similar unmet 
needs (e.g., software for limited English 
proficient participants). These consortia 
could contract for the development of 
software, with the resulting products 
made available to consortia members at 
no cost. Subsequent distribution might 
be through low-cost channels under 
license with the publishers/developers. 
As priority unmet needs are identified, 
the Center itself could also contract for 
development of products. 

One area in which a general need has 
been identified by Expert Panelists and 
knowledgeable officials is the develop¬ 
ment of assessment instruments, includ- 
ing: (a) instruments which assess 
higher-order and critical thinking skills 
development as part of remedial 
programs, particularly for dropouts and 
potential dropouts; (b) literacy instru¬ 
ments which assess basic skills as they re- 


43 


CHAPTER IV 


late to clusters of occupational areas; and 
(c) instruments which accurately and 
reliably assess the development of skills 
through the use of computer-based tools 
(e.g., word processing). 

PROGRAM-SPECIFIC 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

A number of policy activities relate to 
specific JTPA program activities. 

1. TITLE H 


technology use; and 
• encourage states to provide 
SDAs and service providers 
with reasonable access to exist¬ 
ing assessment information 
which can be used in the par¬ 
ticipant appraisal/screening/as¬ 
sessment process and facilitate 
coordination, in the assessment 
area, between ES offices and 
SDAs/PICs to minimize un¬ 
necessary duplication of test ad¬ 
ministration. 


Several options/initiatives which could 
expand or improve the use of computers 
and related technology in the Title II 
program include: 

• encourage the creation of 
regional consortia of 
SDAs/PICs and community- 
based service providers in order 
to aggregate markets for 
hardware and software to obtain 
greater vendor discounts and to 
fund software development to 
meet common, unmet needs; 

• encourage hardware and 
software vendors to develop 
lease-purchase policies which 
can accommodate the needs and 
constraints of the existing JTPA 
system and encourage states to 
provided to local public schools; 

• encourage states to review exist¬ 
ing state laws and regulations 
(e.g., state-wide hardware con¬ 
tracts, program and teacher 
certification, use of eight per¬ 
cent set-aside) and eliminate 
those that unreasonably restrict 


2. JOB CORPS 

Policies/initiatives that would result in 
expanded or more effective use of com¬ 
puters in the Job Corps include: 

• Create a line item with an ap¬ 
propriate level of funding for 
instructional equipment 
separate from the capital equip¬ 
ment line item; this option 
would reduce time and 
problems in the budgetary ap¬ 
proval process and would 
provide greater opportunities 
for uniform use of computers 
among different types of Job 
Corps centers. 

• Modify existing Job Corps 
manuals to provide greater 
flexibility in the use of new, crea¬ 
tive software to teach higher 
order thinking skills and to 
provide greater flexibility in 
using appropriate assessment in¬ 
struments. 

• Establish policies and proce¬ 
dures that would allow the Job 
Corps to serve as a national 



CHAPTER IV 


44 


laboratory for developing, adapt¬ 
ing, and pilot testing computer- 
based instructional tech¬ 
nologies; the focus of such ac¬ 
tivities would include improving 
Job Corps operations as well as 
field-testing and evaluating 
training programs that could be 
used in JTPA Title 11(A), Title 
11(B), and Title III programs. 

This policy would be consistent with the 
original legislation and policies which 
created the Job Corps in the mid-1960s. 
These procedures would also include ap¬ 
propriate funding for dissemination of 
information about Job Corps service 
delivery and pilot tests to appropriate 
JTPA officials. 

• Encourage sharing of informa¬ 
tion about computer use in ap¬ 
propriate programs among Job 
Corps contractors, including in¬ 
formation about DOL-funded 
pilot programs, DOL-supported 
software development and adap¬ 
tation, and alternative uses of ex¬ 
isting assessment instruments. 

• Establish mechanisms by which 
ES and labor market informa¬ 
tion from many areas can be 
made available to Job Corps of¬ 
ficials to enhance placements of 
Corps members in their home 
locales. 

• Conduct a review of existing in¬ 
structional management systems 
used in Job Corps and else¬ 
where to determine appropriate¬ 
ness of their use in Job Corps 
programs and disseminate find¬ 
ings to Job Corps center staff. 


3. TITLE m 

Many of the barriers to effective com¬ 
puter use in Titles 11(A) and 11(B) are 
similarly evident in Title III programs for 
dislocated workers. The unique nature 
of Title III, however, suggests that at least 
one program-specific strategy might be 
appropriate. 

Among the characteristics of a good 
Title III program are "fast roll out and 
rapid ending" after the plant closing crisis 
is over. This suggests that the state, or 
better yet, a region have hardware and 
software materials that it can quickly 
deploy and then redeploy in a new situa¬ 
tion. This may mean leasing equipment 
to a provider or making it available on 
some other basis. For this approach to 
be successful, the repository would need 
an assigned staff person who would know 
what was available and who could 
provide the "institutional memory" about 
what courses work in alternative situa¬ 
tions. 

One of the first initiatives to be under¬ 
taken by the National Technology 
Resource Center would be the design of 
two or three hardware/software con¬ 
figurations which could be used to 
provide remedial and skill development 
in most Title III programs. Based on a 
review of exemplary technology sites, 
some of the important characteristics of 
these configurations would include: 

• open entry/exit to accommodate 
flexible participant scheduling; 

• self-paced and self-directed 
instruction (including peer 
tutors); 




45 


CHAPTER IV 


high interest-level materials 
and/or basic skills tied to 
specific occupational clusters; 
specific technology which can ac¬ 
commodate the needs of limited 
English proficient populations 
through audio and graphic over¬ 
lays; 

specific technology delivery 
which can build upon existing 
use infrastructures (e.g., instruc¬ 
tional television receiving 
facilities, cable systems, interac¬ 


tive telecommunication 
networks); 

• technology which can be easily 
transported to locations with 
minimal cost and technical 
down time (e.g., the hand-held 
tutor for English as a Second 
Language developed by the 
Army Research Institute); and 

• technology configuration which 
can be implemented without the 
need for skilled staff and/or in¬ 
structors. 




















47 


References 


Berlin, Gordon and Sum, Andrew, Toward a More Perfect Union: Basic Skills. Poor 
Families. And Our Economic Future. Occasional Paper Number Three, Ford Foun¬ 
dation Project on Social Welfare and the American Future, Ford Foundation, New 
York, New York, 1988. 

Blaschke, Charles L., "Educational Telecomputing: The Need for Managerial and 
Political Innovation", Learning Series for Tomorrow. Apple Computer, Inc., 1988. 

"Can Computers Answer America’s Training Needs?", Instructional Delivery Sys- 
tfims* January/February 1988. 

Center for Advanced Technology in Education, University of Oregon, Costs. Ef¬ 
fects. and Utility of Microcomputer-Assisted Instruction . 1986. 

Education TURNKEY Systems, Inc.. Uses of Computers in Education . March 1985. 

Florida Department of Education, Survey of Micrcomputer Use . January 1988. 

Hunter, Beverly, Computer-Based Tools in Learning and Teaching : A Research 
Agenda, 1987. 

Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium, Videodics in Education : A Direc¬ 
tory, 1987. 

National Commission for Employment Policy, Survey of Basic Skills Remediation 
Practices in JTPA Youth Programs. Vol. 2, No. 1, January 1988. 

National Governors’ Association, Center for Policy Research and Analysis, Manag¬ 
ing Information at the State Leve l: Opportunity and Challenge, March 1983. 

National Governors’ Association, Center for Policy Research, Specifications for In¬ 
tegrated Management Information Systems for the Job Training Partnership Act .. 
May 1984. 

Packer, Arnold E. and Johnson, William B., Workforce 2000: Work and Workers for 
the Twenty-first Century . Hudson Institute, Indianapolis, Indiana, 1987. 

Resnick, Lauren, Testimony before Subcommittee on Education and Health of the 
Joint Economic Committee, October 5, 1987. 





















48 


Rodenstein, Judith M., "Microcomputers in the Classroom: Are There Unique Is¬ 
sues for Vocational Educators to Consider?", Instructional Strategies for using 
Microcomputers in Vocational Education . The Vocational Studies Center, Univer¬ 
sity of Wisconsin-Madison, 1984. 

Southeastern Educational Improvement Laboratory, National Survey of the Job 
Training Partnership Act Eight Percent Set-Aside . October 1987. 

Taggart, Robert, The Comprehensive Competencies Program: A New Way to 
Teach. A New Way to Learn . The United States Basic Skills Investment Corpora¬ 
tion, 1988. 

TALMIS, Annual Survey of Microcomputer Use in Schools . 1987. 
talmis, A nnual Surve y of Micro c omputer U se i n S cho ol s , 1988. 

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Employment 
Service Program Letter No. 8-87, May 15, 1987. 

U.S. General Accounting Office, Job Training Partnership Act: Summer Youth 
Pro g rams I nc rease Empha sis on Educ ation , June 1987. 


U.S. Office of Technology Assessment, Science, Education, and Transportation 
Program, Trends and Status of Computers in Schools: Use in Chapter 1 Programs 
and Use with Limited English Proficient Students . March 13, 1987. 

















49 


APPENDIX A 


APPENDIX A 


Representative Projects Using Computers 
in JTPA Title H 


General Motors New Technology 
Training (Wentzville, OH) receives 
funding from the State, JTPA Title II, 
and General Motors Corp. 

Uses of the technology: 

• Training to operate and main¬ 
tain robots 

• CAI in industrial robotics 
PLATO 

• Basic skills 

Dislocated Worker Retraining (Al¬ 
legheny Community College, PA) 
receives funding from JTPA Title III, and 
the County. 

Uses of the technology: 

• Repair robotics 

Learning Opportunities Center (Cor¬ 
vallis, OR) receives funding from the 
State Dept, of Vocational Ed. and JTPA. 

Uses of the technology: 

• Remedial basic skills 

Elliot Training Center (Greenburg, 
PA) receives funding from JTPA Titles 
II and III. 

Uses of the technology: 

• Teach programming 

• Teach CAD/CAM 

• Teach computer application 


Program to Reach Employment Poten¬ 
tial (PREP) (Dayton, OH) receives 
funding from JTPA Title II and Dayton 
Board of Education. 

Uses of the technology: 

• Computer literacy 

South Carolina Technical Education 
System (Columbia, SC) receives funding 
from state funds, industry in-kind con¬ 
tributions, and JTPA Titles II and III. 

Uses of the technology: 

• Advanced office operation 

• Advanced machine tooling 

• Microelectronics 

• Computer Applications 

• Robotics 

Before Employment Skills Training 

(Rock Island, IL) receives funding from 
JTPA Title II. 

Uses of the technology: 

• CAI to teach pre-employment 
and work maturity comprehen¬ 
sion (CCP programs) 

New Horizons (Richmond, VA) 
receives funding from JTPA, The Edna 
McConnel Clark Foundation, Richmond 
Public Schools, and VA Community 
University 

Uses of the technology: 


APPENDIX A 


50 


• Basic skills 

• Computer literacy 

• Interpersonal skills 

• World of work training 

Comprehensive Countywide Dislo¬ 
cated Worker (Niagara County, NY) 
receives funding from the State. 

Uses of the technology: 

• CAI in basic and remedial skills 

• Vocational skills training 

Options, A School for New Skills 

(Washington, D.C.) receives funding 
from DES and the Ford Foundation. 
Uses of the technology: 

• CAI 

• Job search skills 

Retail Training Course (Atlanta, GA) 
receives funding from JTPA. 

Uses of the technology: 

. CAI 

• Job search skills 

Learning and Career Center (Mt. 
Clemens, MI) receives funding from 
JTPA, L’Anse Creuse and Public 
Schools. 

Uses of the technology: 

• Diagnostic testing 

• CAI 

Summer Youth Remediation Program 

(Newark, DE) receives funding from 
JTPA Title II. 

Uses of the technology: 

• CAI (CCP programs) 

SER Learning Center (San Antonio, 
TX) receives funding from JTPA Title II. 
Uses of the technology: 

. CAI (PLATO) ' 


• ESL, Adult basic education, 
GED 

Adult Prevocational Remediation 

(Wilmington, DE) receives funding from 
JTPA. 

Uses of the technology: 

• CAI (CCP Programs) 

Teen Parent Assistance Program (Oak¬ 
land, CA) receives funding from Title II. 
Uses of the technology: 

• CAI for basic skills (CCP 
programs) 

Dropout Prevention (Newark, DE) 
receives funding from JTPA. 

Uses of the technology: 

• CAI for remedial skills (CCP 
program) 

Student Career Introduction Program 

(Louisville, KY) receives funding from 
JTPA and the State. 

Uses of the technology: 

• Computer science training 

• Computer literacy 

Pre-Employment Skills for Women 

(Sturgeon Bay, WI) receives funding 
from Title II. 

Uses of the technology: 

• Computer literacy 

• Information management 

College Motivation Program (Dayton, 
OH) receives funding from Title II and 
Wright State University. 

Uses of the technology: 

• Computer literacy 

• Computer math 




51 


APPENDIX A 


College Preparatory Program (Dayton, 
OH) receives funding from Title II and 
Public schools. 

Uses of the technology: 

• Computer literacy 

Computer Industry Technology 
Program receives assistance from State 
funds. 

Uses of the technology: 

• Computer technology training 

Huffy Corporation Training Program 

receives funding from the State and the 
Vocational Education Act. 

Uses of the technology: 

• CAD/CAM training 

• Computer awareness 

Custom Tailored Industrial Training 

Uses of the technology: 

• Microelectronics 

• Robotics 

• CAD/CAM 

Upward Bounds’s Metro Center 
Program (NY, NY) receives assistance 
from Educational funding. 

Uses of the technology: 

• Basic computer skills 

Information Processing Specialist 
Program (Twin Falls, ID) receives fund¬ 
ing from Title II, Department of Labor 
Women’s Bureau and IBM Corporation. 


Uses of the technology: 

• Office automation training 

• Word processing training 

Partners in Education (Cincinnati, 
OH) receives funding from the Army 
Corps of Engineers. 

Uses of the technology: 

• Computerized weather forecast¬ 
ing 

Youth Competencies Programs (Louis¬ 
ville, KY) receives funding from the 
Louisville and Jefferson Counties 
Private Industry Council. 

Uses of the technology: 

• Computer literacy 

• Pre-employment and work 
maturity 

Tampa Private Industry Council 

(Tampa, FL) receives funding from 
JTPA, IBM Corporation, and business 
donations. 

Uses of the technology: 

• Computerized job placement 

• CAI for basic skills 


Data Source: NAB Clearinghouse 














































53 


APPENDIX B: CASE STUDIES 
Methodology 


A series of five case studies were con¬ 
ducted to describe exemplary JTPA 
computer applications and identify any 
patterns across JTPA programs that use 
technology effectively. In the 
paragraphs below are outlined: (a) the 
criteria and procedures by which case 
study sites were identified; (b) the 
hypotheses tested during the case 
studies; and (c) the approach to data 
gathering and analysis during case 
studies. 

A. SITE SELECTION 

The identification of sites to be used for 
case studies adhered to a number of 
criteria and followed a set of procedures 
described below. 

1. CRITERIA 

The selection process, in actuality, in¬ 
volved two sets of criteria. The first was 
program criteria -- that is, characteristics 
that must be present in selected 
programs. The second set of criteria are 
descriptions of the group of sites as a 
whole, often representing factors of 
selection "balance". 


Program Criteria 

The preliminary criteria were discussed 
and refined as part of the Expert Panel 
meeting. An overriding criterion was the 
availability of existing information, 
either through interviews or reports, 
describing the program and its im¬ 
plementation process. Specific program 
criteria included: 

• demonstrated performance in 
mastery of skills and/or com¬ 
petencies achieved by par¬ 
ticipants, as measured by an ap¬ 
propriate assessment instru¬ 
ment; 

• innovative use of technology 
which fully utilized the capacity 
of the technology; 

• ease of replication, implementa¬ 
tion, and use by appropriate 
providers of service; 

• availability of hardware and 
human resources to replicate 
the model program or key com¬ 
ponents in other potential sites; 
and 

• demonstrated or potential cost 
effectiveness in the long- or 
short run. 


APPENDIX B: CASE STUDIES 


54 


Ongoing contacts with regional and 
state officials indicated that many offi¬ 
cials have quite clear views of exemplary, 
computer-based programs within their 
purviews. 

Many of them could not, however, ar¬ 
ticulate within the framework of objec¬ 
tive criteria the reasons for their 
designations. As part of our site selec¬ 
tion process, we attempted to fit recom¬ 
mended programs into our set of 
program criteria. We did not lose sight 
of the fact that the subjective impressions 
of these officials could be extremely valu¬ 
able and should not be ignored even if 
their rationale does not fit a neatly 
defined set of criteria. 

Group Criteria 

The group of five case study sites were 
selected to provide a fair representation 
of the types of programs we wished to ex¬ 
plore and to achieve a balance in terms 
of a number of exogenous factors. 

Our plan for site selection called for the 
following distribution of program types; 

• one local (SDA and service 
provider) Title 11(A) and Title 
11(B) combined program; 

• one local Title 11(A) program 
only; 

• one local Title 11(B) program 
only; 

• two Job Corps delivery systems 
(with one tied to Job Corps 
MIS); 

The relatively small number of sites 
made it impossible to achieve any sys¬ 


tematic selection across a large number 
of variables. However, a number of fac¬ 
tors were considered in the final selec¬ 
tion of sites; these included: 

• geography: care was taken to 
ensure that one region of the 
country was not overly repre¬ 
sented among the case study 
sites; 

• demographics: local service 
delivery sites were drawn from 
communities representing a 
variety of urban, suburban, and 
rural settings; 

• state governance: local sites 
were chosen to reflect variation 
in the nature and strength of 
state governance of JTPA; and 

• computer type: the final set of 
case study sites included 
variation in the types (brands) 
of hardware and software being 
used. 

2. PROCEDURES 

The process by which case study sites 
were selected followed a series of formal 
and informal steps: 

• Preliminary criteria were 
presented to the Expert Panel 
and NCEP staff. 

• Based on this consultation with 
the Panel and NCEP staff, a 
final case study design was 
developed, including program 
criteria, group criteria, and 
criteria measures. 

• Suggestions for exemplary sites 
were solicited from NCEP staff, 
Panel members, state and 


55 


APPENDIX B: CASE STUDIES 


regional contracts, national ser¬ 
vice providers and other groups 
serving at-risk populations. 

• For the case study "slots" 
described above, more than 30 
candidate sites were identified. 

• Preliminary information on can¬ 
didate sites were collected 
through telephone contacts and 
informal document requests. Ef¬ 
fort was taken not to impose any 
reporting burden on candidate 
sites. 

• A preliminary site selection -- 
along with the selection ration¬ 
ale — was presented to the 
NCEP Project Officer. 

• Based on NCEP approval, the 
selection of five case studies was 
finalized and the selected sites 
were notified. 

B. HYPOTHESES 

Below we list a number of hypotheses 
investigated in the case studies, along 
with some explanatory variables as¬ 
sociated with the hypotheses. The 
general hypotheses to be tested across 
programs included the following: 

• The initial impetus to use com¬ 
puters and related technology 
came from an advocate who 
championed the idea, both ini¬ 
tially and then through the im¬ 
plementation process. Ex¬ 
planatory variables usually in¬ 
cluded: (1) the advocate had 
computer-related knowledge 
and expertise or had direct ac¬ 
cess to individuals with such ex¬ 


pertise; (2) the advocate 
promoted the use of technology 
as a means to benefit either ex¬ 
isting staff and/or participants in 
achieving program goals; and 
(3) while the advocate was a risk 
taker, he/she sought to mini¬ 
mize risks at critical points 
within the organization. 

Priority support at the policy 
level for technology use existed 
initially or was generated over 
time. High-level support was 
maintained throughout the im¬ 
plementation process as technol¬ 
ogy demonstrated success in 
meeting benchmarks and mile¬ 
stones in the accomplishment of 
the program’s overall goals and 
objectives. 

The program using technology 
(and/or the primary institution 
responsible for the program) 
had organizational and funding 
stability. To the extent funding 
uncertainty existed, key 
promoters of technology sought 
to reduce this uncertainty 
through additional sources of 
revenue, promoting the 
program benefits to 
"stakeholders", and taking ap¬ 
propriate measures to ensure 
continuity of appropriate key 
staff throughout the implemen¬ 
tation process. 

Prior to the use of technology, 
there was a program design with 
stated goals, performance-based 
objectives, and major operation¬ 
al procedures such that technol¬ 
ogy could be used as a means to 
provide efficient implementa- 


APPENDIX B: CASE STUDIES 


56 

tion. Variables associated with 
this hypotheses would include: 

(1) key policy makers and ad¬ 
ministrators who "knew what 
they wanted"; and (2) carefully 
designed specifications that 
were effectively communicated 
to service providers. 

• Appropriate levels of staff 
development and ongoing sup¬ 
port were provided throughout 
the implementation process. 
Variables associated with effec¬ 
tive staff training include: (1) 
orientation to the technology, in¬ 
cluding functionality and utility; 

(2) hands-on equipment train¬ 
ing at appropriate times; and (3) 
refresher training to update and 
expand technology applications. 
Characteristics of ongoing fol¬ 
low-up support include: (^ven¬ 
dor support for service 
providers; (2) development of 
an internal care of staff to 
provide maintenance and other 
support; and (3) staff and fund¬ 
ing allocated to support ac¬ 
tivities. 

• service provider staff was in¬ 
volved in designing the overall 
program if not the specific use 
of technology; 

• perceived benefits to staff and 
participants were communi¬ 
cated and understood by staff in 
an attempt to reduce anxieties; 

• use of technology was effective¬ 
ly integrated into acceptable 
procedures followed by staff, in¬ 
cluding variables such as ap¬ 
propriate integration of cour¬ 
seware into curricula, correla¬ 


tions of courseware with objec¬ 
tives, and accreditation of 
programs by recognized 
authorities (e.g., state depart¬ 
ment of education or local 
school district); and 

• appropriate incentives were 
provided to staff who actively 
supported and used technology 
in an effective manner. 

C. CASE STUDY APPROACH 

The general case study approach con¬ 
sists of two components: (1) descriptive 
analyses of individual cases; and (2) 
cross-site comparisons to identify pat¬ 
terns and test hypotheses. 

1. DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS 

The purpose of this case study com¬ 
ponent is to describe successful uses of 
technology, with the intent of providing 
useful information for replication in 
other programs nationally. For each of 
the cases, the following types of informa¬ 
tion are included in a descriptive 
analysis. 

Context 

Contextual information is primarily 
limited to variables which could have 
had an impact on computer-based tech¬ 
nology use: 

• general political and 
socioeconomic environment in 
which the program was planned 
and implemented; 


57 


APPENDIX B: CASE STUDIES 


• state laws and regulations which 
influenced program design and 
technology use; 

• local program administrators’ in¬ 
terpretations of JTPA program 
guidelines, regulations, etc. af¬ 
fecting decisions to use technol¬ 
ogy; 

• overall local program priorities, 
goals, and objectives; and 

• demographic information on 
participants (e.g., urban/rural, 
etc.). 

Program Description! 
Implementation Variables 

The program description and im¬ 
plementation variables included: 

• history of the program and/or 
the evolution of technology use 
in it; 

• services/functions provided by 
the organization; 

• specific uses of computer-re¬ 
lated technologies; 

• barriers encountered during 
planning and implementation 
phases and actions taken to 
overcome barriers; and 

• factors contributing to the over¬ 
all success of technology use in 
the program. 


2. CROSS-SITE 
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS 

The purpose of the cross-site analysis is 
to test the study’s general hypotheses, to 
identify any patterns or trends related to 
technology use across JTPA programs, 
and to provide insights into the intended 
and unintended consequences of various 
policy options. The analytical technique 
is one used by TURNKEY for the Office 
of Technology Assessment in conducting 
studies of successful Federal R&D 
programs supporting education technol¬ 
ogy (1987), in the case studies of the im¬ 
plementation of P.L. 94-142, and in other 
related case study projects. 

Basically, the procedure involves link¬ 
ing successful program outcomes to fac¬ 
tors contributing to the success, many of 
which could be aggregated at certain 
levels to relate to study hypotheses. The 
procedure begins with a review of the 
case studies; descriptive analyses and 
notes and offers preliminary identifica¬ 
tion of certain patterns and trends. Dis¬ 
cussions between the Project Director 
and site visit team leaders were held to 
review critical items and responses to 
prepare further analysis. Finally, the 
cross-site analysis component of the case 
study report was prepared highlighting 
trends, patterns, and common factors 
across case study sites. 











































59 


AUSTIN, TEXAS 


Introduction 


In this section we provide background 
information on the Austin/Travis Coun¬ 
ty Private Industry Council (PIC) and 
describe the general use of technology in 
the PIC. 

Background 

The Austin/Travis County PIC serves 
the Austin metropolitan area, which has, 
since 1985, experienced a significant in¬ 
crease in unemployment. Today, un¬ 
employment is over seven percent. 
While services and government sectors 
have improved, the industrial sectors 
most severely affected over the last year 
are the manufacturing, construction, and 
restaurant trades. Construction activity 
has been hurt by low occupancy, an abun¬ 
dance of new office buildings, and a stag¬ 
nant residential market. The trade 
industries have felt pressure from the 
slowdown; eating and drinking estab¬ 
lishments have been especially hard hit. 
Local government and some health ser¬ 
vice industries have, on the other hand, 
posted moderate gains over the last year. 

The local PIC board has seven repre¬ 
sentatives from large private firms, one 
from a small business, and six from small 
minority businesses. Also on the board 
are representatives from veterans’ 
groups, organized labor, local com¬ 
munity-based organizations, the Austin 
Business League, Austin Independent 


School District, Texas Employment 
Commission (TEC), community col¬ 
leges, senior citizens groups, and 
rehabilitation agencies. 

The PIC staff consists of ten full-time 
employees including an executive direc¬ 
tor, deputy director, fiscal officers, con¬ 
tract compliance specialist, MIS 
specialist, planner, program coordinator, 
vocational evaluator, and administrative 
staff. The PIC executive director has 
been in his current position for about 
two years; before that, he directed the 
rehabilitation and personnel division of 
Goodwill Industries, a key subcontractor 
for the PIC JTPA program. 

Because of the worsening economic 
situation over the last two years, the 
SDA’s JTPA allocation has increased to 
approximately $1.7 million, of which ap¬ 
proximately $250,000 is devoted to ad¬ 
ministrative staff and budget. This 
increase has provided some funds for in¬ 
vestments in computers for administra¬ 
tive use. 

The major programs/providers and 
their funding allocations are displayed in 
Exhibit A-l. In addition to the three 
programs which have been selected for 
case study review, other major programs 
include: 

• Goodwill Industries, which 
provides remedial education 
and training options for youth 
and adults, including work ad- 




AUSTIN, TEXAS 


60 


justment training, personal/so¬ 
cial adjustment, vocational ESL, 
job readiness training, and 
electronics assembly training, 
under both Title 11(A) and (B). 

• Middle Earth, which operates 
Title 11(A) and 11(B) programs 
to develop independent living 
and life skills; specifically, the 
program is designed to: (a) im¬ 
prove the educational level and 
employability of youth through 
counseling, career assessment, 
and work experience; (b) in¬ 
crease the motivational level of 
youth; and (c) provide direct ser¬ 
vices benefiting the elderly com¬ 
munity. 

• SER-Jobs for Progress, which 
has operated Title 11(A) and 
11(B) programs for several years 
and currently is providing basic 
education and on-the-job train¬ 
ing programs; the SER program 
is currently expanding its use of 
computers to provide remedial 
instruction and office skills train¬ 
ing. 

• Youth Employment Service, 
which provides training services, 
under Titles 11(A) and 11(B), in¬ 
cluding work experience, job 
readiness, job search assistance, 
part-time work experience, class¬ 
room training, and office skills 
under Titles 11(A) and (B). 

In 1986, the PIC served 722 Blacks, 660 
Hispanics, and 465 Whites, for a total 
population served of 1,847. The Black 
and Hispanic populations served by the 
PIC are approximately 25 percent higher 
than their incidence within the general 
poverty population in the Austin area. 


Over the last year and a half, the PIC has 
developed a number of high priority ac¬ 
tivities: 

• It has increasingly focused on 
single parents. In 1986, almost 
half of the 707 participants 
placed in full-time employment 
were single female parents, with 
children under age six. 

• It has focused on ’’at-risk youth”; 
three of the eight major 
programs are in dropout 
recovery, dropout prevention, 
and/or related activities. 

• It has made a concerted effort 
to focus on economic develop¬ 
ment by forming a Business Ad¬ 
visory Committee with repre¬ 
sentatives from major corpora¬ 
tions and government agencies. 

• Within the last year, the PIC has 
taken a proactive role in 
marketing its services (e.g., as¬ 
sessment and counseling) to 
corporations and expanded its 
services that would normally be 
provided by service providers. 
The assessment and counseling 
service is computer based (as 
described below). This priority 
can be attributed to the PIC’s 
perceived need to diversify its 
sources of revenue beyond the 
JTPA and to provide services to 
corporations willing to assist 
workers and potential 
employees who do not qualify 
for participation in JTPA- 
funded programs. 


AUSTIN, TEXAS 


61 


Exhibit A-1 

Major Program Providers 



Total Funding 


Funding Source 

AAUL (Urban League) 

$112,074 


Title 11(B) 

CISA (Community in Schools) 

105,500 


Title 11(A) 

Creative Rapid Learning Center 

390,000 

210,000 

125,000 

55,000 

Title I (A) 
Title 11(B) 
Section 123 

David, Beverely 

77,698 


Title III 

Goodwill Industries 

385,000 

250,000 

135,000 

Title 11(A) 
Title 11(B) 

Huston-Tillotson 

122,150 

71,750 

50,400 

Title 11(A) 
Title 11(B) 

Middle Earth 

258,698 

125,000 

133,698 

Title 11(A) 
Title 11(B) 

SER 

530,862 

227,000 

303,862 

Title 11(A) 
Title 11(B) 

Texas Employment Commission 

270,750 

200,000 

7,750 

Title 11(A) 
Title III 

Texas School for the Blind 

24,000 


Section 123 

Youth Employment Service 

385.584 

215,000 

170,584 

Title 11(A) 
Title 11(B) 

TOTAL 

$2,599316 




In addition, the PIC has implemented a 
number of provisions to ensure that the 
JTPA program is even more perfor¬ 
mance driven than in the past. For ex¬ 
ample, a 15 percent "hold back" clause 
has been included in all recent Title 11(A) 
contracts to ensure that contractors en¬ 
roll the contracted number of eligible 
out-of-school youth. It has also 
developed several other contractor 
policies, including: (1) no payment for 
enrollment until 30 hours of training had 
been completed; and (2) payment for job 


placement after 21 days of employment 
for adults and after seven days of employ¬ 
ment for youth. As a result, the PIC 
proudly points to its success over the last 
year, as displayed in Exhibit A-2. 

The Austin/Travis County PIC uses 
computers and related technology exten¬ 
sively in both program administration 
and service delivery. Each of the ten staff 
members has his or her own IBM-com¬ 
patible computer. 





AUSTIN, TEXAS 


62 


Exhibit A-2 

PERFORMANCE COMPARISON 
(FY86 PIC: July 1,1986 to June 30,1987) 


Plan 

800 

Actual 

1,117 

425 

711 

425 

508 

200 

274 

303 

367 

$3,242.44 

$1,753.46 

$3,610.83 

$2,626.10 

4.58 

5.01 


Total Served 

Total Entered Unsubsidized 
Employment 
Total Youth Served 
Total Youth Entered 

Unsubsidized Unemployment 
School Dropout 

Adult Cost/Positive Termination 
Youth Cost/Positive Termination 
Average Starting Wage at Placement 

Use of Technology 

LOTUS 1-2-3 (one of the most widely 
used spreadsheet programs) is used by 
several staff to negotiate and monitor 
performance contracts. All staff have ac¬ 
cess to the data base, which includes in¬ 
formation on the current status of each 
program by service provider. This sys¬ 
tem is used for monitoring and selecting 
service providers and negotiating con¬ 
tinuation contracts. 

A data base program is used to provide 
data to the Texas Department of Com¬ 
merce (TDOC), under which the JTPA 
office was recently placed. The PIC can 
access the TDOC data base. However, 
since the TDOC is currently selecting a 
new computer for state-level use, the PIC 
is not planning to develop an on-line ac¬ 
cess capability until that decision is 
made. Another reason the PIC relies on 
its own data bases is that the TDOC 
program cannot report on individual 
programs. 


As described below, computers and 
scanners are used extensively in the PIC’s 
assessment and counseling program. 

The PIC has the capability to access the 
TEC job bank in order to determine, for 
example, eligibility of participants for the 
Title III program. However, it decided 
to contract with the TEC to provide these 
services and does not use this capability. 
The PIC MIS generates numerous 
reports for internal management pur¬ 
poses, including: enrollments, training 
completions, placements, wage rates, 
employment retention, performance 
payments to providers, and employment 
reimbursements. These reports can be 
accessed by the LOTUS 1-2-3 program 
to monitor service providers, determine 
payments, and report data to other agen¬ 
cies. 

The PIC is planning to expand technol¬ 
ogy use in both administration and ser¬ 
vice delivery. For example, it is 
establishing, as part of its business 
economic development thrust, a small 




63 


AUSTIN, TEXAS 


business bid procurement system, similar 
to one recently developed by the Hous¬ 
ton PIC. This system will provide cus¬ 
tomized information to small business on 
procurement announced in the Com- 
merce Business Daily, as well as on con¬ 
tract awards which may provide small 
business subcontract opportunities. The 
PIC is also interested in reviewing the 
CCP ESL program being developed at 
the Multi-Cultural Interim Program (a 
technology development group) in 
Washington, D.C. for possible use in its 
planned services. The PIC plans to in¬ 
itiate, in the near future, an older 
workers program in cooperation with a 
local service provider. In this program, 
the PIC will assess the effectiveness of 
computer-based instruction, particularly 
related to word processing and spread¬ 
sheets, which will be used as part of the 
instructional program. 

Senior PIC staff and board members 
believe that computer use in PIC ad¬ 
ministration and service delivery has 
been extremely beneficial, esulting in 
reduced staff time in preparing reports. 
They believe it has enabled them to im¬ 
plement and monitor performance- 
based contracts, has improved the 
performance-driven nature of the 
program, and has freed staff time from 
administrative duties to such an extent 
that PIC staff can now reallocate time to 
marketing its services to private corpora¬ 
tions and other groups outside the JTPA 
system. Because of the PIC staffs suc¬ 
cessful use of computers in administra¬ 
tion, they are even more convinced than 
before that computers and related tech¬ 
nology can be used effectively in service 
delivery areas. 


Description of Programs 

Generally, computers are used more 
extensively in the Austin SDA that in 
other SDAs. Below we describe several 
programs which use technology in an ex¬ 
emplary manner. 

Service Providers 

Since 1984, the American Institute for 
Learning (AIL) has operated self-help 
programs for dropout youth for the Aus¬ 
tin/Travis County PIC. AIL’s flagship 
program is the Creative Rapid Learning 
Center (CRLC) which provides services 
under both Title 11(A) and 11(B); a 
dropout prevention program has also 
been established in Johnston High 
School, modeled after the CRLC. 

Having worked with at-risk youth for 
more than a decade and having estab¬ 
lished a model creative arts reading 
program, AIL is a nationally recognized, 
community-based program. It has a long 
record of providing effective programs 
for inmates of correctional institutions 
and other hard-to-serve populations. In 
addition to JTPA-funded services, AIL 
provides services to other groups and in¬ 
stitutions, some of which relate to tech¬ 
nology use. For example, as part of the 
IBM Study Partnership, AIL has 
developed courseware and has tested 
and validated additional courseware 
developed and marketed by IBM for use 
with at-risk populations. Also, it is help¬ 
ing to design correlations between IBM 
software and the CCP program. It is 
developing a videodisc-based program 
on budgeting for functionally illiterate 
youth and adults and is helping IBM and 






AUSTIN, TEXAS 


64 


Interactive, Inc. to correlate segments of 
the "What’s Next?" videodisc program to 
CCP objectives and competencies. 
Under a grant from the Mott Founda¬ 
tion, AIL also conducts policy research 
on at-risk populations. In 1984, AIL staff 
actively participated in the design of a 


state-wide study of dropouts and sub¬ 
sequently submitted a report to the state 
legislature which led to recently passed 
legislation (H.B. 1010). AIL receives 
funding from a variety of sources, as 
described in Exhibit A-3. 


Exhibit A-3 

AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR LEARNING 
1987-88 Proposed Budget 
Funding Sources Over $5,000 


Revenue Sources 

City of Austin 
Travis County 
PIC (86-87, 87-88) 

Mott 

IBM 

Meadows 

Texas Comm, for Arts 
RGK 

PIC Title 11(B) Summer 

Tuition 

Donations 

TOTAL 


1986-87 

mirM 

$ 85,790 

$ 85,790 

83,251 

83,251 

113,830 

227,625 

60,000 

50,000 

21,500 

11,500 

0 

40,000 

6,500 

6,500 

0 

10,000 

125,000 

55,500 

12,278 

22,500 

urn 

17.5QQ 

$510,309 

$610,166 


AIL has a full-time equivalent staff of 
approximately 18 including certified 
teachers, assistant instructors, and 
specialists for counseling, intake, out¬ 
reach, job development, and creative 
arts. Many of the staff have backgrounds 
in liberal and creative arts. Most staff 
received training in technology use after 
joining AIL. 

AIL staff, particularly the executive 
director, have developed strong profes¬ 
sional relationships with important com¬ 
munity groups. For example, the 


chairman of the board of AIL, a former 
Lockheed executive, is on a sabbatical to 
serve as Chairman of the Austin Cham¬ 
ber of Commerce and Chairman of the 
Governor’s Task Force on Vocational 
Education. Another AIL board mem¬ 
ber serves as a director for the Aus¬ 
tin/Travis County PIC. 

AIL’s unique attributes include prior 
staff experience in the use of technology. 
The entire staff is totally dedicated to the 
philosophical approach underlying the 
programs operated by AIL. AIL began 








65 


AUSTIN, TEXAS 


using microcomputers in the early 
1980’s, when several microcomputers 
were donated; training was provided by a 
variety of groups. In 1984, AIL became 
heavily involved in developing the CCP 
program and received extensive support 
from the Remediation and Training In¬ 
stitute (RTT), in which recently created a 
new marketing group (U.S. Basics, Inc.). 
Subsequently, some key AIL staff have 
become seasoned trainers for other CCP 
users and participate in RTFs National 
Academy training programs. 

In addition to technology use in service 
delivery, AIL also uses computers and re¬ 
lated technology in management and 
support functions. Eighty percent of AIL 
staff have their own computers which 
they use for word processing, internal 
reporting, and analysis of student records 
and program effects. Scantron data scan¬ 
ning equipment is used extensively to 
enter data into the CCP program. Apple 
Macintosh and He equipment is used 
heavily in developing proposals and 
quarterly reports to RTI. Plans are un¬ 
derway to expand the use of computers, 
particularly Macintosh and IBM System 
2, to other administrative and reporting 
functions, including an electronic 
mail/bulletin board system to link all AIL 
sites and possibly all CCP sites in Texas. 
AIL has taken a lead role in a joint effort 
between the newly formed Texas Basics, 
Inc. and the Texas Association of PICs, 
which received a $100,000 grant to 
develop training program linkages 
among service providers and PICs 
throughout the State. 


Technology-Based Services 

Three separate JTPA programs 
operated by AIL and two operated by the 
PIC provide technology-based services. 

(1) Creative Rapid Learning Center 
(CRLC) — Title 11(A) Youth 

The CRLC is designed to assist high 
school dropouts aged 14 to 21 in acquir¬ 
ing basic employment, as well as 
academic and functional like skill com¬ 
petencies to prepare them for entry into 
successful employment in the Austin 
labor market. In the current year, ap¬ 
proximately 135 youth are participating 
in this multifaceted program. Most par¬ 
ticipants enter the program with reading 
capabilities below the seventh grade 
level. The program provides a com¬ 
prehensive mix of services, including: 

• academic remediation and 
GED preparation, using the 
CCP; 

• communication, creativity, and 
self-esteem building; 

• pre-employment and life skills 
training, which follow the 
state-approved youth competen¬ 
cy and occupational knowledge 
regimen; 

• job placement and ongoing fol¬ 
low-up; and 

• counseling and network services 
provided by CRLC staff, 
employers health and child care 
professionals, social service 
agencies, vocational training in¬ 
stitutes, and local colleges and 
universities. 


AUSTIN, TEXAS 


66 


The nucleus of the CRLC is the CCP 
program, a competency-based and 
structured curriculum including lesson 
plans, benchmarks, master tests, and in¬ 
structional aids. The CCP system in¬ 
cludes CAI lessons operating on 
stand-alone Apple computers. CRLC is 
the first Texas site to use the IBM Ad¬ 
vance Network system, operating on an 
AT file server with eight enhanced IBM 
PCjrs. In addition, the program includes 
about 100 IBM software titles designed 
to improve basic skills. 

One of the unique aspects of this 
program is the "mapped" correlations of 
the IBM software to the CCP program. 
AIL staff developed these correlations 
and the taxonomy which interfaces the 
two systems. 

The CCP has three tiers of instruction: 

• Tier 1: basic competencies 
directly equivalent to reading 
and math instruction in grades 
one through four; this tier em¬ 
phasizes CAI and print ap¬ 
proaches including life and 
employability skills. 

• Tier 2: an intermediate com¬ 
petency level which covers 
remedial academic instruction 
for approximately grades five 
through eight; CAI and print 
materials are primarily used, 
supplemented by audiovisual 
materials. 

• Tier 3: advanced competencies 
which are designed to prepare 
participants for high school 
tests, GED, armed services 
vocational aptitude battery, or 
college boards; a comprehen¬ 


sive array of employability and 
life skills materials are used ex¬ 
tensively in this tier. 

The CCP instructional management 
system is the heart of the program for stu- 
dent-directed, self-paced, open 
entry/open exit instruction. Reports on 
attendance, pre- and post-tests, mastery 
tests, competency achievements, grade- 
level gains, and hours on task are created 
automatically by the Apple computer. 
Prescriptive lesson plans, available 
through the IBM network, are also built 
into this system. The Test of Adult Basic 
Education (TABE) is used as a pre-test 
for determining a learner’s entry grade 
level. It is readministered after ap¬ 
proximately 100 hours of study time to 
determine grade gains. If reading levels 
are below the third grade level or if a 
learning disability is suspected, the par¬ 
ticipant is referred to the Austin Literacy 
Council for instruction. Each participant 
is interviewed by the training director 
and/or counselor to determine educa¬ 
tional, career, employment, and other in¬ 
terests and needs, and an Employability 
Development Plan (EDP) is developed. 
In addition to the TABE, CCP diagnos¬ 
tic tests are used to place an individual in 
the program and prescribe lessons for 
that individual. 

Depending on the participant’s place¬ 
ment in the program, other tests beyond 
mastery tests (including pre-GED tests) 
are administered, evaluated, and docu¬ 
mented within the CCP system. The 
CCP instructional management system 
captures all test scores and provides op¬ 
portunities for analyses of strengths and 
weaknesses by instructors and program 
administrators. One critical element in 


67 


AUSTIN, TEXAS 


the CCP is training for both teachers and 
students. CCP instructors have to be cer¬ 
tified by RTI (now U.S. Basics) and, in 
many cases, the teachers in the CRLC are 
also certified by the State of Texas. The 
CCP program is also certified by the 
Texas Department of Commerce, as the 
CCP lesson plans have been correlated 
to the Texas Essential Skills, the recent¬ 
ly mandated State objectives for all Texas 
schools. 

Participants in the program receive ap¬ 
proximately five days of training in the 
use of the CCP system, including the 
instructional management system, test 
scoring packages which use Scantron 
scanning equipment interfaced with the 
Apple computer, and the IBM network. 
In a very real sense, the participants are 
trained to teach themselves as the entire 
approach is participant-directed and 
self-paced. During the site visit, the 
study team staff person was briefed on 
the CCP by a recent graduate who "just 
dropped into the Center to see if he could 
help out." At a recent national con¬ 
ference on technology and adult literacy, 
sponsored by Pennsylvania State Univer¬ 
sity, a participant in the program (not 
AIL staff) briefed conference attendees 
on the operation of the CCP and the IBM 
Advance Netware system. AIL staff 
believe that such training is not only 
motivational and educational, but also 
develops a sense of value and accoun¬ 
tability. 

Of CRLC’S 125 Title 11(A) participants 
served last year, 95 percent received 
positive termination compared to 71 per¬ 
cent for the PIC as a whole. Participants 
during the second quarter of 1987 
averaged 1.24 grade equivalent gain in 


reading and a 1.66 gain in math. Of the 
82 youth involved in the 1987 summer 
program 70 percent demonstrated "sig¬ 
nificant grade level gains in math and 
English", while 98 percent returned to 
school and 95 percent completed train¬ 
ing. 

(2) Dropout Prevention — Title 11(A) 

Since January 1987, AIL has operated a 
dropout prevention program at 
Johnston High School. Each semester, 
approximately 40 students, ages 14 to 16, 
identified as potential dropouts, are 
referred to the program by school coun¬ 
selors and other staff. The object of this 
program is to increase academic gains, 
motivate students to remain enrolled in 
school, and to master youth competen¬ 
cies and occupational knowledge. 
During a five-month period last spring, 
40 students participated in the program; 
only two dropped out and 37 were en¬ 
rolled in school in September, 1987. 
During the five-month period of instruc¬ 
tion, the average reading grade gain was 
1.24, while the math grade level gain was 
1 . 66 . 

The program used at Johnston High is 
very similar to the technology configura¬ 
tions used at the CRLC, with several ex¬ 
ceptions: 

• in addition to stand-along Ap¬ 
ples and the IBM network, 
other stand-alone microcom¬ 
puters (e.g., Apple II + and 
Texas Instruments) are used 
with such commercial software 
as PLATO; 

• AIL coordinates their activities 
more closely with regular 


AUSTIN, TEXAS 


68 


teachers, counselors, and 
parents to assist participants 
overcome their barriers to high 
school success; and 
• in addition to IBM, Lockheed 
supports the program by provid¬ 
ing periodic assistance through 
donation of staff to serve as 
tutors and mentors. 

There are a number of, not insurmount¬ 
able, problems with a standard school 
system and a self-paced, student- 
centered program operated together. 
For example, students who go beyond the 
grade level materials assigned to them 
may, upon approval by the principal, 
receive testing provided by local univer¬ 
sities for advanced placement credit. 
Some older students may not continue in 
the program after they reached age 21 
because they were no longer permitted 
legally to go to school. Indeed, one of the 
three individuals who dropped out did so 
for this reason. Another problem re¬ 
lates to determining participants’ 
eligibility for the dropout prevention 
program funded under JTPA. In a 
program for 14 and 15 year olds, 
operated by Huston-Tillotson College, 
PIC staff indicated that only 35 to 50 stu¬ 
dents in need would or could provide the 
necessary information to determine 
program eligibility. 

(3) Summer Youth Employment 
Program -- Title 11(B) 

In 1987, AIL operated a summer youth 
program for 82 youth. Of this total, 98 
percent returned to school, 95 percent 
completed training, and more than 90 
percent demonstrated significant grade 
gains in math and English. The goal of 


the program was to increase academic 
abilities, computer literacy skills, life 
skills, and work experience of in-school 
youth ages 14 through 21. In addition to 
the regular academic remediation and 
pre-employment job readiness training, 
a program component (conducted by 
IBM instructors) provided work ex¬ 
perience and intensive computer skills 
training in office occupations for ten par¬ 
ticipants. 

The program which has been proposed 
for follow-on funding for the summer of 
1988 occur at both the CRLC and 
Johnston High School, with ap¬ 
proximately 30 participants at each site. 

As with last summer’s program, 
remediation, life skills, and educational 
enhancement will be provided three 
hours daily over a six-week period for 
participants aged 14 through 16; 16 to 21 
year-old participants who are below 
grade level will also be eligible for 
remediation. Classes will also be avail¬ 
able six hours a day for pre-employment 
and job readiness training. Eligible par¬ 
ticipants will receive specific skills train¬ 
ing by IBM instructors in the Computer 
Office Skills Training (COST) program. 
To be eligible, students must have a 
ninth grade proficiency level and be in¬ 
terested in office careers. The course 
will include an introduction to com¬ 
puters, computer keyboard training in 
work processing, spreadsheets, and data 
base management programs. 

One relatively unique aspect of the 
CRLC program, including the summer 
youth program, is its emphasis on the 
development of life skills. The life skills 
instructor is an extremely competent in- 


69 


AUSTIN, TEXAS 


dividual who has dealt with at-risk youth 
in public school environments and ex¬ 
emplifies the CRLC philosophy of 
hands-on learning with strategies 
designed for each individual. The train¬ 
ing program which he developed builds 
heavily on work experiences within the 
CRLC, where he attempts to instill in 
participants the value of basic skills as 
they relate to on-the-job success. Last 
summer, for example, the basic skills 
math program emphasized drill-and- 
practice lessons from the building trades; 
participants assisted in building a kitchen 
and other facilities at the Center. The 
life skills instructor has also trained a 
number of participants to operate the 
IBM Advance Netware system; in doing 
so he has carefully selected lessons re¬ 
lated to office occupations and equip¬ 
ment maintenance and repair. He has 
attempted to integrate basic skills and 
remedial education into occupational 
areas in a novel way, building on the ex¬ 
periences available at the CRLC. 

(4) PIC Corporate Model Program 

In 1986, the PIC initiated the Corporate 
Model Program in cooperation with the 
Department of Human Services (DHS) 
and the Texas Employment Commission. 
The model was designed to improve 
coordination among DHS, TEC, and PIC 
programs involving single parents receiv¬ 
ing AFDC to provide them opportunities 
to attain employment and become finan¬ 
cially independent. 

During the last year, 96 participants 
(aged 16 to 42) were served. While the 
majority had high school diplomas, their 
level of functional achievement was 
slightly above the seventh grade level. 


Unlike many programs operated under 
subcontract with service providers, this 
program was operated by the PIC in its 
headquarters office. 

The technology nucleus of the instruc¬ 
tional program was the Steck-Vaughn 
GED-100 system. In some respects, it is 
similar to the CCP; however, the initial 
price of the system is a great deal lower 
than CCP. The GED-100 system uses a 
combination of computer-managed in¬ 
struction and CAI supplemental instruc¬ 
tion, in combination with a variety of 
print and audiovisual materials. 

The curriculum and lesson plans in¬ 
clude a variety of print materials from 
such publishers as Cambridge Publish¬ 
ing, materials from a university-base 
program (e.g., University of Kentucky), 
and a variety of software made available 
to the program by the Austin Community 
College (ACC). The instructor was 
hired part-time from her employment at 
the ACC to direct the GED program. 

Initially, some participants resisted 
using the computer for instructional 
purposes. Over time, however, this 
problem was overcome through the 
patience of the instructor, the acquisition 
of highly motivational software (focusing 
on areas of high interest to adults), and a 
focus on practical life skills (e.g., word 
processing) relevant to employment. 

In additional to the instructional 
delivery, the PIC also uses a sophisti¬ 
cated, computer-based assessment and 
counseling program with the par¬ 
ticipants. Marketed by Pesco, of 
Pleasantville (New York), the JOBS sys¬ 
tem is quite comprehensive including ap- 


AUSTIN, TEXAS 


70 


titudes, physical demands, environmen¬ 
tal conditions, temperaments, and inter¬ 
est patterns, among other factors. A 
variety of tests are administered in 
developing an individual evaluation 
plan for the participants. 

One of the more widely used tests is the 
Valpar series. As participants complete 
the appropriate batteries, the results are 
entered into a computer which im¬ 
mediately displays the results for review 
with the individual by the counselor. 
One unique capability of the JOBS sys¬ 
tem is that Pesco provided, for the Aus¬ 
tin PIC, a locally customized data base on 
local employers which have available 
positions keyed to DOT classifications. 
The assessment and counseling services 
provided by the PIC are being marketed 
to private corporations for a fee of ap¬ 
proximately S500 per participant. 

(5) Broyhill Dislocated Worker 
Program -- Title III 

The PIC recently initiated a dislocated 
worker program, funded under Title III 
($75,000), for 150 of the 280 former 
employees of Broyhill Manufacturing 
which recently closed its Austin plant. 
Sixty of these workers have limited 
English proficiency and approximately 
75 percent are functionally illiterate. 
Several also have handicapping condi¬ 
tions. 

The PIC administers the program and 
provides assessment and counseling ser¬ 
vices similar to those used in the Cor¬ 
porate Model Program. The PIC has 
also subcontracted to a group respon¬ 
sible for outreach and appropriate 
remedial/training programs. Operated 


at the DeWittee center, the program’s 
primary training objectives thus far have 
been pre-employment skills develop¬ 
ment. Another group involved in this 
program is the Texas Employment Com¬ 
mission, which is responsible for all of the 
intake processing of participants and 
coordination with the Office of Un¬ 
employment Insurance. One of the key 
functions provided by the TEC is deter¬ 
mining eligibility of participants for the 
Title III program. The TEC relies on its 
MIS, which maintains records on in¬ 
dividuals who are considered for par¬ 
ticipation in the program. 

Barriers To Technology 
Use Or Technology-Using 
Programs _ 

Barriers to technology use which have 
often plagued other PICs and service 
providers are few and minor in Austin. 
Most of the potential funding problems, 
especially for initial investment in tech¬ 
nology, were minimal as AIL received 
the hardware and software at no cost for 
participation in the joint IBM study; AIL 
also provided direct services (e.g., 
software development, correlations, 
mapping) to IBM for which they were 
reimbursed. As one of the initial CCP 
sites, AIL also received materials and ex¬ 
tensive technical assistance and training. 
The purchase of hardware and software 
for administrative and other functions by 
the PIC was funded through the large in¬ 
crease in JTPA allocations over the last 
two or three years. Most of the service 
providers also had additional sources of 
revenue to cover or to share some of the 
initial costs of investment in technology. 




71 


AUSTIN, TEXAS 


There are, on the other hand, a number 
of current or potential barriers to con¬ 
tinued or expanded use of technology. 
The PIC has expressed the need for more 
information on hardware and software 
which could be used in the program. 
The PIC staff have relied on word-of- 
mouth for such information and, until 
recently, had travel funds to go to con¬ 
ferences or other sites using technology. 
Because of travel and related budget 
reductions, PIC staff feel they will have 
to rely heavily on service providers 
and/or vendors (IBM, RTI, or Steck- 
Vaughn) as primary information sources. 
The AIR also expressed the need for ac¬ 
cess to useful information to assist them 
in selecting software, for example, to up¬ 
date the CCP. Since AIL plans to begin 
using the IBM InfoWindow videodisc 
system, there is an expressed need for ad¬ 
ditional information on videodisc 
programs and model programs using 
videodiscs. AIL officials also want to es¬ 
tablish an information network among 
PICs and service providers which focuses 
on technology-related products, sub¬ 
jects, and issues. 

Both the PIC and service providers have 
expressed concern about the JTPA 
eligibility criteria and feel that the 
process for determining participant 
eligibility is unduly time-consuming and 
burdensome on both staff and par¬ 
ticipants. As a result, it unnecessarily 
reduces the number of participants who 
could and should participate in such 
programs. For example, when the 
Johnston High School dropout preven¬ 
tion program received JTPA funding, in¬ 
take officials found that many students 
originally in the program were unable to 
provide the necessary information to 


determine eligibility (many parents were 
leery of providing such information). 
Other PIC-administered programs suf¬ 
fered similar reductions in participation 
for the same reason. 

Observers of the Johnston High School 
dropout prevention program have ap¬ 
plauded AIL’s introduction of a student- 
directed, self-paced learning system into 
a school facility with a traditional, time- 
based environment. Attempts have been 
made to minimize several certification 
problems (i.e., certifying teachers, 
providing opportunities for advanced 
placement, testing for students who ad¬ 
vance beyond their grade level). There 
are also a host of minor problems which 
constrain the effectiveness of technology 
use in this type of setting and the realiza¬ 
tion of its full potential. To varying 
degrees, all concerned parties (including 
the PIC, AIL, the school, IBM, and Lock¬ 
heed) have expressed a desire to resolve 
as many of these problems as possible. 
Alternative models are being designed 
for use in planned expansion of this con¬ 
cept in additional schools in the near fu¬ 
ture by AIL, IBM, and U.S. Basics. 

PIC and AIL officials recognize a 
potential problem resulting from the suc¬ 
cess of the program and its selection as a 
model national site -- namely, how to 
handle the projected requests for infor¬ 
mation and on-site visits from interested 
parties around country. The AIL direc¬ 
tor expressed intent to seek funding as¬ 
sistance from a local foundation or group 
to cover staff to provide these services, in 
order to minimize disruption to opera¬ 
tional programs. PIC officials also 
believe that national demonstration 
projects have the potential of creating 



AUSTIN, TEXAS 


72 


similar problems and burdens placed on 
them. They expressed a desire for 
greater cooperation between hardware 
vendors, service providers, and other 
groups to minimize this burden, while at 
the same time providing opportunities 
for visitors to view their programs. 

Success Factors 


The success of the technology-using 
programs in Austin can be attributed to 
a number of factors. 

First, the performance-driven nature of 
the overall PIC program, building on 
performance contracts with appropriate 
incentives for providers, encourages 
providers to use the most effective and 
appropriate technology to achieve par¬ 
ticipant objectives. Moreover, it adds 
objectivity to the service provider selec¬ 
tion process, thereby minimizing politi¬ 
cal influence (e.g., to select certain 
providers). 

Second, the partnership nature of the 
program goes beyond formal require¬ 
ments. PIC administrative support to 
service providers has been one important 
aspect; the roles of AIL’s president and 
executive director in obtaining com¬ 
munity, state, business, and other sup¬ 
port has been significant; and the 
services and support provided by such 
vendors as RTI and IBM have also con¬ 
tributed to overall success. 

Third, in the eyes of outside observers, 
the most critical factor contributing to 
the successful use of technology has been 
the dedication and capabilities of the ser¬ 


vice provider and PIC staff. The AIL ex¬ 
ecutive director not only has extensive 
experience and a track record in operat¬ 
ing successful programs for at-risk youth, 
but also is extremely capable of raising 
funds to purchase technology (or obtain 
it on a loan basis). All instructional staff 
come from nontraditional teaching back¬ 
grounds and are dedicated to serving at- 
risk youth populations. All have also 
been effectively trained in the use of the 
appropriate technology configurations. 

Fourth and last, the technology con¬ 
figurations used in Austin have unique 
features which contribute significantly to 
the program’s success. The self-paced, 
student-directed CCP system integrated 
with Apple stand-alone and IBM net¬ 
work configurations contribute to suc¬ 
cess by: (a) empowering students, 
thereby increasing self esteem; (b) in¬ 
stilling values of personal accountability; 
(c) providing an environment in which 
students succeed rather than fail; and (d) 
developing competency skills in which 
participants can measure their own suc¬ 
cess. As AIL staff members note, 
however, while technology is important, 
a comprehensive program designed to 
meet the needs of each individual is the 
hallmark of success. 

Closing Comment _ 

Below we summarize some of the les¬ 
sons learned in Austin and important 
considerations for possible adoption in 
other sites: 

• A partnership must be built on 
mutual interest with appropriate 
incentives for all parties. Strong 





73 


AUSTIN, TEXAS 


leadership roles for all parties 
also appear to be critical. 
Multiple sources of funding 
(e.g., foundations, vendor dona¬ 
tions, JTPA, among others) 
which provide opportunities for 
both the PIC and service 
provider to diversify and pur¬ 
chase/obtain initial hardware 
and software are critical. Non- 
JTPA funding for programs are 
also needed to serve those par¬ 
ticipants in need but not eligible 
for JTPA programs. 

Dedicated staff with necessary 
expertise to use the technology 
effectively is important; staff ex¬ 
perience and/or expertise in 
motivating at-risk youth is 
critical. 

While technology can facilitate 
the implementation of an in¬ 
structional program, it is only 
one of several important 
components of a comprehensive 
services program to meet the 
individual needs of participants. 


Implicit in these lessons are the condi¬ 
tions which should exist in other sites 
contemplating the use of such a com¬ 
petency-based instructional delivery 
program as CCP and the use of networks 
for instructional purposes. These impor¬ 
tant conditions might include: (a) posi¬ 
tive attitudes among teachers and school 
staff for in-school dropout prevention 
programs (i.e., that at-risk youth can suc¬ 
ceed); (b) availability of incentives for 
service providers to do a good job, 
reflected in future RFP criteria and ap¬ 
propriate incentives for staff and par¬ 
ticipants; (c) a student-directed 
philosophy of individualized instruction; 
and (d) a facility and environment which 
is conducive to learning. In short, most 
observers of technology-using programs 
in Austin believed that computer-based 
delivery was an important ingredient, but 
that these other conditions and factors 
contributed more to overall program 
success. 
















































75 


SOUTH CAROLINA GOVERNOR’S 
REMEDIATION INITIATIVE 


Introduction 


The State of South Carolina operates 
the majority of its JTPA programs 
through a single-state service delivery 
area called the Governor’s Remediation 
Initiative (GRI). The State is a recipient 
of JTPA Federal funds and is the ad¬ 
ministrative entity for the programs. 

The Division of Employment and 
Training, housed in the Office of the 
Governor, is responsible for JTPA 
programs. The Division is undergoing 
changes -- re-assignment of existing staff 
and an influx of new staff. The recently- 
elected Governor is in the process of as¬ 
sessing current programs and 
establishing new priorities. The exact fu¬ 
ture direction of the State’s JTPA 
program is, therefore, rather unclear. 

The State’s single service delivery agen¬ 
cy operates seven programs, including: 
(a) classroom training; (b) skills training, 
including occupational, with some basic 
skills; (c) on-the-job training; (d) in¬ 
dividual work experience; (e) programs 
for in-school use, including pre-employ¬ 
ment, work maturity, and related train¬ 
ing; (f) job search assistance; and (g) 
remediation services included in the 
GRI. 


The current budget for all JTPA 
programs in South Carolina includes: 

• Title 11(A) — $21 million; 

• Title 11(B) - $9 million; 

• Title III-$1.8 million; 

• JTPA eight percent set-aside — 
$2.3 million; and 

• JTPA six percent incentive — 

$2 million. 

In South Carolina, as in many other 
states, there exists a strong correlation 
between low student achievement and 
poverty. An analysis conducted in 1985 
by GRI staff found that in seven counties 
where the percentage of poverty was less 
than 20 percent, the percentage of stu¬ 
dents below standard in reading was al¬ 
ways under 30 percent. In counties 
where the percentage of poverty was 
greater than 20 percent, the percentage 
below standard in reading was always in 
excess of 30 percent. 

Another prevalent problem within 
South Carolina has been the high in¬ 
cidence of teen-age pregnancy. In 1986, 
approximately 3,400 babies were 
mothered by young women under the age 
of 18. Another 5,300 pregnancies were 
aborted or miscarried. Eighty percent of 
teen-age mothers do not complete their 
education. These and other trends 
within the State, including education 
reform initiatives, have contributed to 





SOUTH CAROLINA 


76 


the creation of the Governor’s Remedia¬ 
tion Initiative. 

Description Of Programs 

Below we describe the GRI, including 
the subcontractor (Winthrop College) 
which administers the program, the his¬ 
torical evolution of the program, and the 
current technology-based programs 
being used. 

Winthrop College 

The GRI is administered by Winthrop 
College, one of South Carolina’s four- 
year public colleges. The decision to 
place the program at Winthrop, was, ac¬ 
cording to officials, made because of the 
College’s substantial leadership and 
commitment to teacher preparation and 
expertise in technology. 

The Winthrop College unit responsible 
for the GRI has an Acting Director, an 
evaluator/MIS specialist, administration 
assistant, and clerical staff. Under a sub¬ 
contract, the Sumter Area Technical 
College provides technical assistance to 
school staff on hardware and software 
usage. The two staff persons involved 
under this technical assistance sub¬ 
contract also monitor the implementa¬ 
tion of the program design to ensure that 
it is being implemented as planned. 

The objective of the program is to 
develop and implement a collaborative 
remediation system, to be jointly used by 
school districts and the technical educa¬ 
tion system, which will enhance the 
employability of students. The system is 
based upon reading and math curricula 


in a learning-resource laboratory setting, 
which is competency based, prescriptive, 
individualized, and measurable. There 
are 99 high schools involved in the GRI 
program, housing more that 100 math 
labs and 85 reading labs. 

In 1984, the initial GRI was funded by 
the Office of the Governor’s Division of 
Employment and Training. Total fund¬ 
ing was $4.5 million (from State funds 
and the eight percent set-aside) which es¬ 
tablished the program at Winthrop Col¬ 
lege. It was funded for a three-year 
period, commencing July 1,1984 and en¬ 
ding June 30,1987. 

The target population of the GRI is at- 
risk youth who score in the lowest quar- 
tile on the California Test of Basic Skills 
(CTBS) or are below standard on a South 
Carolina state-wide test, the Basic Skills 
Assessment Program (BSAP). Both of 
these instruments are used to assess 
reading comprehension, vocabulary, 
reference skills, math computation, and 
math concepts. The CTBS was used as 
both the pre- and post-test during 1986- 
87. Approximately 10,000 students were 
served in the program last year, with 
about 13,000 students being provided 
services this year. 

While Winthrop has attempted to tar¬ 
get development on those schools with 
the highest proportion of economically 
disadvantaged youth, it appears as if the 
main criterion for selection has been the 
willingness of the schools to implement 
the programs. As noted later, determin¬ 
ing income eligibility for students has 
been a general problem affecting the 
program recently. 





77 


SOUTH CAROLINA 


Technology 

In the mid-1970’s, the first Director of 
the GRI began developing an in¬ 
dividualized program within the techni¬ 
cal school system. The primary foci of 
the curriculum were reading, math, and 
English. The system relied very heavily 
on paper and pencil, print, and 
audiovisual materials. CETA and other 
funds were used to develop this initial 
curriculum. 

In 1976-77, the technical schools in¬ 
tegrated this individualized curriculum 
into the overall teaching strategy of all 
the technical colleges in the State. Over 
the next eight to nine years, the cur¬ 
riculum was refined and revised. 

During the early 1980s, initiatives were 
undertaken to begin using computers for 
both instruction and instructional 
management. Computer-assisted in¬ 
struction was designed to supplement, 
not replace, the print and audiovisual 
means of delivery. Officials state that the 
selection of Apple hardware was based 
largely on the rapidly increasing base of 
educational software which executed on 
Apple equipment. 

In 1982, the instructional management 
system, which included diagnostic and 
prescriptive capabilities, was 
programmed for use on DEC Rainbow 
microcomputers and was provided to 13 
sites for their use. More than $150,000 
was received under a Ford Foundation 
grant to develop the system. Interfaced 
with a scanner, this system was used for 
test scoring and student record keeping. 
The instructional management system 


focused primarily on math and included 
various audiovisual materials which were 
used to supplement existing materials 
and reinforce concepts. 

In 1983, the Governor’s office began 
developing a state-wide initiative to test 
the resulting technology-based instruc¬ 
tion management system as a teaching 
tool in high schools in the State. A key 
official in the Office of the Governor 
convinced others in the office that the 
system should be targeted for at-risk high 
school students to upgrade their basic 
skills. 

Shortly thereafter, the State legislature 
passed the Education Improvement Act 
of 1984, which required competency test¬ 
ing for all high school students before 
graduation. Through the efforts of the 
individual noted above and his participa- 
tion in the education improvement 
movement in South Carolina, programs 
were established to ensure that at-risk 
youth would not fall even further behind 
and drop out of school. Since July 1, 
1984, the Office of the Governor has 
committed approximately $5.2 million 
of JTPA eight percent funds to estab¬ 
lished and implement the GRI program. 

In 1985, when Winthrop College be¬ 
came the subcontractor for the GRI 
program, a major effort was undertaken 
by the staff and consultants to evaluate 
more than 800 software titles that could 
be used in the curriculum and to corre¬ 
late these titles with objectives in the in¬ 
structional management system. The 
instructional objectives were also corre¬ 
lated with the State competency testing 
program. The six-volume compilation 



SOUTH CAROLINA 


78 


of software evaluations of math and read¬ 
ing titles represented the first major ef¬ 
fort to identify software that not only 
could be used with at-risk youth, but also 


was related to State competencies/objec¬ 
tives. Growth of the program is dis¬ 
played in Exhibit B-l. 


Exhibit B-1 
GROWTH OF GRI 


Year 

Type 

Number of 
Labs Funded 

Cumulative 
No. of Labs 

School 

Districts 

1984-85 

Math 

9 

9 

4 

1984-85 

Reading 

6 

6 

2 

1985-86 

Math 

73 

82 

43 

1985-86 

Reading 

0 

6 

2 

1986-87 

Math 

22 

104 

58 

1986-87 

Reading 

51 

57 

39 

1986-88 

Math 

0 

104 

58 

1986-88 

Reading 

12 

69 

46 


The total cost for setting up these labs 
has been approximately $45,000 for math 
and $60,000 for reading, including 
teacher costs. The GRI, using JTPA 
eight percent set-aside funds, provides 
approximately $16,500 for math and 
$25,000 for reading. In most situations, 
laboratories are designed to have ratios 
of one teacher per 12 students, with four 
computers. Three computers are typi¬ 
cally provided by the school and one 
through GRI funding. Initial funding 
was spent on hardware and software. 

Through negotiations, schools, for ex¬ 
ample, provided hardware and the GRI 
funds were used to provide other 
materials and equipment. 

Initial grants also provided for training 
of approximately 140 teachers in the 
summer of 1985 on the Winthrop cam¬ 


pus. The college provides approximate¬ 
ly 40 hours of teacher training for lab 
teachers participating in the GRI 
program. State certificates (including 
college credits) were awarded to those 
successfully completing the training. 
Teacher training included the used of 
program materials, instructional 
management software, and computer use 
for instruction. In 1986-87, as new math 
and reading labs were added to the net¬ 
work, an additional 60 math teachers and 
120 reading teachers were trained at 
Winthrop College. 

Exemplary Technology Use 

The GRI currently uses three ex¬ 
emplary technology applications to 
provide remediation instruction and sup¬ 
port. 







79 


SOUTH CAROLINA 


(1) Math Labs 

In the math labs, four stand-alone 
Apple computers are used to provide 
supplemental CAI instruction. A variety 
of commercial software, which has been 
correlated to State and program objec¬ 
tives, is used. Most of the software titles 
were purchased from ten or so different 
software publishers. The diagnos¬ 
tic/prescriptive system, operating on 
DEC Rainbow microcomputers, is avail¬ 
able to diagnose, assign levels, and assign 
tasks. This diagnostic/prescriptive sys¬ 
tem was developed under the Ford Foun¬ 
dation grant in the 1980s and is used 
extensively in the 16 technical schools 
across the State. It does not, however, 
have the capacity to monitor student 
progress. 

In addition to this system, which is used 
in all of the math labs, there are 15 labs 
now using the Learning Management 
System (LMS) available from Com¬ 
puter-Based Training System (CBTS) of 
Calgary (Canada). This comprehensive 
system is designed for basic skills and oc¬ 
cupational training. The LMS operates 
on a DEC computer located in high 
school labs funded under the GRI 
program. 

The CBTS has licensed the technical 
schools to use the program and has al¬ 
lowed any high schools which can be con¬ 
nected through local telephone lines to 
have access to the system. This system 
includes test banks and correlations 
which were custom developed for South 
Carolina by the GRI. As new materials 
are identified and as test items on the 
State competency test change, GRI staff 


can make appropriate changes in the 
LMS. The one-time cost of the LMS 
license is $15,000 per site (technical 
school). Plans had been underway to ex¬ 
pand the LMS to all of the 16 technical 
schools within the state in the future; 
however, funding uncertainties and the 
limited capability of some technical col¬ 
leges to accommodate the system could 
limit expansion. 

(2) Reading Labs 

In each of the reading labs there are ap¬ 
proximately four Apple He microcom¬ 
puters; Apple Ilgs’s microcomputers are 
use for CAI instruction in a sup¬ 
plementary manner. The diagnos¬ 
tic/prescriptive system is on an Apple 
computer connected to a 20-megabyte 
hard disc. It can provide diagnos¬ 
tic/prescriptive capabilities and assists in 
monitoring student progress. Reading 
teachers do most record keeping, test 
scoring, etc. by hand rather than by com¬ 
puter. 

Students may receive prescription, 
which includes lessons available to them 
on DuKane audiovisual equipment or 
from print material. Typically, as a stu¬ 
dent finishes a particular module, she is 
tested for mastery and, if she passes four 
out of five items, the student proceeds to 
the next learning module. Most instruc¬ 
tion is individualized, self-paced, and 
student- directed. 

The instructional management system 
used in reading is a customized version 
of the Prescription Learning 
Corporation’s IMS. Approximately half 
of the CAI lessons are published by 


SOUTH CAROLINA 


80 


Prescription Learning System, with the 
remainder available from other commer¬ 
cial third-party software publishers. 
Most of the reading curriculum (includ¬ 
ing some software selected for the 
program) was developed by a committee 
composed of GRI high school teachers. 
The committee was headed by a reading 
faculty member at Winthrop. The "map¬ 
ping" of lessons to state objectives was 
then made available to Prescription 
Learning, which integrated them into 
their IMS. Hence, this instructional 
management system is custom-designed 
for South Carolina use. 

Most observers and staff expressed the 
need for a more sophisticated instruc¬ 
tional management system in reading, 
particularly one which could automate 
the scheduling, testing, and scoring 
process and provide other opportunities 
to reduce staff time and paper work, 
thereby allowing for increased teacher- 
student contact time. 

(3) Telecommunication Network 

One of the most unique features of the 
GRI is the communication network be¬ 
tween Winthrop College and each lab. 
Initially, a technical college mainframe 


computer was the hub of the network. 
Subsequently, the GRI acquired its own 
mainframe. Each school has toll-free ac¬ 
cess to the Winthrop mainframe three 
days a week. A computer inquiry about 
the curriculum, its management, the 
motivation of students, or any problem 
(e.g., curricula-checking, hardware) re¬ 
lated to the math and reading labs is 
usually answered with the same day by 
Winthrop staff. 

An estimated 16,000 pieces of 
electronic mail will travel annually over 
six toll-free WATTS lines into GRI’s 
electronic post office. About a quarter of 
this electronic mail will be addressed to 
the project director and the Winthrop 
College staff. The other 12,000 messages 
will be passed among teachers who share 
information, ideas, and experience in a 
collegial environment. The GRI net¬ 
work is building team spirit among a 
sizable corps of teachers committed to 
the success of computer-assisted instruc¬ 
tion in South Carolina. 

In Exhibit B-2, the number and brands 
of microcomputers and related 
hardware used in the GRI program is dis¬ 
played. 


81 


SOUTH CAROLINA 


Exhibit B-2 

GRI TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY 


Computer Equipment 

Apple He 

JTPA(Title II(A))Funds 

124 (reading) 

106 (math) 

230 

School-Purchase 
372 (reading) 

273 (math) 

645 

Modems 

110 

0 

Hard Disc 
with Mgmt. System 

67 

0 

Rainbow 

106 (Math) 

0 

Printers 

40 

55 

Apple IIs 

12 

0 


Benefits 


Participants’ test results for the first two 
years of the program, measured by the 
Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) score 
on the CTBS math and math concepts 
test, have improved. The expectation for 
all students is zero NCEs per year, since 
gain is relative to their counterparts on 
normal curve tables. The goal of the 
program is to show gains greater than one 
NCE. As stated in GRI’s 1987 final 
report, "The overall gains by students far 
exceeded the usual expectations, 
proclaiming a successfully effort". While 
test results for the 1986-87 year are cur¬ 
rently being calculated, preliminary 
findings indicate that the average NCE 
math gain in grades 10 through 12 
averaged 5.0 NCEs on computation and 
4.9 NCEs on concepts. A similar 
averaged NCE gain for reading was 1.5 
NCEs for the same grade levels. Gain 
scores in reading comprehension ranged 
up to 3.2 NCEs for 11th grade students. 
Reading lab student gain scores were less 
consistent than math. This may be at¬ 


tributed partially to variations in district 
implementation policies. In some cases, 
the units are used for English credit, 
which diminished the time and effort for 
reading. 

The GRI has been one of the most cost- 
effective Title 11(A) program, as far as 
JTPA funding is concerned. Over the 
last four years, the total JTPA cost per 
participant, including original invest¬ 
ment and subsequent operating costs, 
has been approximately $100. During 
the last year, the JTPA operating cost per 
participant has been approximately $40. 

In addition, and perhaps because of 
GRI’s success in increasing student 
achievement, particularly in math, 32 
schools outside of the Title 11(A) JTPA- 
supported program have adopted the 
GRI computer-based learning system for 
use in regular education programs. In 
the 1987-88 school year, it is estimated 
that the financial commitment by the 
adopting school districts will amount to 
more than a half million dollars. A State 








SOUTH CAROLINA 


82 


Department of Correction facility has 
also adopted the lab at their own ex¬ 
pense. 

In addition to expansion of the program 
into other school districts, the GRI has 
undertaken or is planning to undertake 
several initiatives related to further cur¬ 
riculum development, network support, 
and systems evaluation. These initiatives 
include: 

• development of an authoring 
system for new math lessons 
which allows nonprogrammers 
to develop the software; 

• continued development of the 
reading curriculum which began 
in 1984; 

• continued software evaluation 
in English, math, reading, and 
critical thinking skills. 

• continued refinement of math 
curriculum by correlating CAI 
and other materials with BSAP 
state tests; and 

• expanded field-testing of the 
Learning Management System 
using DEC-based system. 

Major Barriers to 
Program and 
Technology Use 

Over time, through an evolutionary 
process, a number of barriers (e.g., staff 
resistance, lack of technical expertise, 
funding level uncertainty) have been 
overcome by GRI staff. Currently, there 
are still a number of major barriers. 


One problem centers on JTPA income 
eligibility. As noted earlier, at-risk youth 
are identified for participation in the 
program based on educational deficien¬ 
cies. At that time, they can be enrolled 
in a lab. In order to identify those who 
are economically disadvantaged and 
therefore eligible for JTPA, GRI staff 
use school lunch eligibility. Later, self- 
reported income levels were used. The 
problem has been that school districts 
and the JTPA system define "economi¬ 
cally disadvantaged" at different levels, 
with the JTPA definition being more 
strict than the Department of Agricul¬ 
ture, which allows a higher income level 
for school lunch eligibility. 

As directed by the State, the GRI is now 
requiring individual certification data for 
participation. Because the GRI uses 
eight percent set-aside money, only 75 
percent of the participants must be JTPA 
income eligible. However, for the GRI 
to complete intake forms (for determin¬ 
ing income eligibility) and certify more 
than 10,000 youth is, in the words of ob¬ 
servers, a "management nightmare". The 
State and GRI have worked out a com¬ 
promise which requires a one-page form 
for each youth with self-reported in¬ 
come levels to determine the percent of 
certification at that level. However, 
school staff and program administrators 
are unhappy with this additional paper 
work requirement. Responses of low-in¬ 
comes families are often marked by skep¬ 
ticism. Moreover, GRI staff believe that 
many schools will elect not to participate 
in the GRI program if a similar program 
very has been adopted in the district’s 
regular Chapter 1 program, for example, 
because of this additional paper work 





83 


SOUTH CAROLINA 


and sensitivities related to collecting in¬ 
come-level data directly or indirectly 
from parents or guardians. 

A second barrier, which has only recent¬ 
ly arisen, is a decision by the JTPA state 
office to fund the GRI on a three-month 
rather than annual basis. Observers note 
that such funding allocations create three 
to four times the amount of reporting, in¬ 
cluding justifications for subsequent 
quarterly funding. Such budgeting also 
creates funding anxieties on the part of 
participating schools and staff, which in 
turn, affects the nature and continuity of 
development plans and initiatives. 

Another concern is the GRI telecom¬ 
munications network, which allows GRI 
and individual teachers to communicate 
with one another. Administrative staff 
and superintendents have expressed con¬ 
cern that communications with their 
schools should be conducted through 
proper channels, especially when they re¬ 
late to hardware problems which could 
have cost implications. Observers feel 
that such anxieties will be allayed, over 
time, as the effectiveness of the system 
for encouraging teacher communication 
(in resolving hardware/software-related 
problems) can be adequately 
demonstrated. 

Coordination between the Office of the 
Governor, which has ultimate respon¬ 
sibility for the JTPA Title II program 
administered by Winthrop College and 
the South Carolina Department of 
Education, is also important. Increased 
policy coordination on such matters as 
eligibility criteria could resolve some is¬ 
sues. Over time, as the new Governor 


more clearly defines JTPA priorities and 
directions for the GRI program, greater 
coordination with the South Carolina 
Department of Education can be ex¬ 
pected to occur. Both the Governor and 
the State Superintendent of Education 
are elected officials. 

Success Factors 


A number of factors have contributed to 
the success of the GRI program and 
technology use. 

First, critical to the successful use of 
technology initially has been the leader¬ 
ship of at least two key individuals. Ap¬ 
pointed in 1984, the GRI Director took 
the major leadership role in developing 
the computer-based instructional 
management and the CAI system, built 
around earlier manually-operated sys¬ 
tems which she and other staff 
developed. In addition to dedication, 
she and other key staff brought to the 
development effort experience and tech¬ 
nical expertise related to computer- 
based education. During the early 1980s, 
the other key individual (located in the 
Office of the Governor) played a leader¬ 
ship role in focusing the program on at- 
risk youth to provide them with remedial 
education for subsequent employment 
and to reduce dropout rates. These two 
combined leadership roles led to effec¬ 
tive initial implementation and success. 

Second, the lengthy planning and sub¬ 
sequent development, redesign, and ex¬ 
pansion process related to technology 
use provided an opportunity for planned 
implementation of the program. Initial¬ 
ly, this was facilitated by GRI’s long-term 




SOUTH CAROLINA 


84 


funding commitment. However, as 
noted earlier, the lack of long-term fund¬ 
ing continuation has created some uncer¬ 
tainty and related problems over the last 
few months. 

Third, the type of technology configura¬ 
tion has also contributed to the success of 
the educational program, particularly in 
mathematics. The instructional manage¬ 
ment systems, combined with sup¬ 
plemental CAI, integrated effectively 
into an overall curriculum which can be 
continually updated, has been a positive 
component. 

In addition, opportunities were 
provided for extensive orientation and 
training prior to implementation; train¬ 
ing focused on the very specific systems 
that teachers would be implementing in 
new labs. 

Ongoing technical assistance, through 
subcontracts with the Sumter Area Tech¬ 
nical College, recently provided the 
necessary problem-solving support to 
staff; the GRI telecommunications sys¬ 
tems also provided on-call assistance on 
an as-needed basis. 

And last, the fact that the GRI is a state¬ 
wide initiative under the leadership of 
the Governor also has contributed to suc¬ 
cessful technology use. The GRI has 
implemented a state-wide purchasing ar¬ 
rangement with publishers and vendors 
which has resulted in discounts benefit¬ 
ing not only the GRI, but also participat¬ 
ing schools that have elected to 
implement the system. Rather than in¬ 
dividual schools having to evaluate 
software, the state-wide initiative 


provides the necessary economies of 
scale to justify a centralized software 
evaluation, mapping, and correlation ac¬ 
tivity which has been critical to the suc¬ 
cess of the program. Reliance on the 
State SAP testing program for designing 
the curriculum resulted in more uniform 
implementation of the program across 
sites. 

Closing Comments 

The GRI is an excellent example of how 
computers can be used in a cost-effective 
manner with a combination of computer- 
managed and computer-assisted instruc¬ 
tion. It is a prime example of how JTPA 
eight percent set-aside funds can be used 
to implement a technology-based, state¬ 
wide effort creating opportunities for 
economies of scale which benefit local 
programs. 

The potential replication of the system 
is very high on a state-wide basis for those 
states interested in state-wide JTPA 
programs. Moreover, a number of com¬ 
ponents of the system are currently avail- 
able for use. For example, the 
six-volume set of software evaluations is 
available from GRI for $85. The com¬ 
puter-managed instructional math 
program has been adopted by a number 
of sites outside the State, in addition to 
32 adopting schools within South 
Carolina. Some of the pilot demonstra¬ 
tion/development efforts currently 
under way will, in the near future, likely 
become available for use in other JTPA 
sites for a reasonable cost through either 
associated vendors or the GRI. And cur¬ 
rent GRI staff, some school staff respon¬ 
sible for labs, and other individuals 



85 


SOUTH CAROLINA 


formerly associated with the program are 
available — at a reasonable cost -- to 
provide technical assistance, training, 


and related support activities for im¬ 
plementing one or more of the com¬ 
ponents of the GRI program. 



































87 


MILWAUKEE 


Introduction 


Below we describe the background in¬ 
formation and describe the technology 
used in the Milwaukee PIC JTPA 
program. 

Background 

The turnaround in manufacturing, 
caused by the falling dollar, has begun to 
affect manufacturing in the Milwaukee 
labor market that has already adjusted to 
the service economy. Labor conditions 
are the tightest they have been in this 
decade, with an unemployment rate 
below five percent. As a result, accord¬ 
ing to the Milwaukee PIC Director, 
"Business is beginning to seek out JTPA 
programs". This is a phenomena of only 
the last three or four months. Another 
result is that "the cream" is gone and 
most JTPA enrollees require enhanced 
basic skills and workplace literacy to 
perform on the job. 

The Director of the Executive Office 
for Economic Resource Development 
(EOERD) generally favors the use of 
technology for delivering service and 
permits arrangements to facilitate this 
use (see the discussion of OIC below). 
However, the SDA has little leverage to 
encourage this trend. If the results were 
truly overwhelming (i.e., providers using 
technology were demonstrably more ef¬ 
fective in moving enrollees into jobs or 
better paying jobs), then the Director 


could gradually shift funds to those 
providers. The data he has seen on learn¬ 
ing gains has convinced him that technol¬ 
ogy will be part of most successful 
programs that teach basic and vocational 
skills to youth and adults. 

Examining the list of JTPA providers in 
Milwaukee supports this conclusion. 
SER and OIC, which are exemplary tech¬ 
nology users, are the biggest contractors; 
the others include 1 1 1 (skill training for 
word processing), the Office Technol¬ 
ogy Academy, and PC Learning systems 
(automated bookkeeping). In the final 
analysis, the SDA must ensure that it ser¬ 
ves the various groups and neighbor¬ 
hoods in Milwaukee and that the basic 
JTPA standards - placement rates, cost 
per placement, and wage at placement -- 
are met. Job retention and career advan¬ 
cement, as well as achievement of basic 
skills, are only secondary measures. 

The Milwaukee PIC 

JTPA Title 11(A) funds ($4.1 million) 
and Title 11(B) funds ($2.5 million) are 
administered in Milwaukee County by 
the EOERD. Last year, EOERD also 
received $200,000 in six percent incen¬ 
tive funds. EOERD’s staff of ten is 
responsible for program planning, con¬ 
tract management, flow of funds, finan¬ 
cial and programmatic reporting, 
program monitoring, and staffing the 
PIC. The PIC has 11 private sector rep- 





MILWAUKEE 


88 


resentatives and ten from the public sec¬ 
tor. 

The EOERD funds 49 separate 
programs operated by almost as many 
organizations; Goodwill, 111, OIC, SER, 
and others run multiple programs. 
EOERD collects data in written form 
from these organizations and transmits it 
in electronic form to Madison for State 
data processing. The State’s WIMS 
(Wisconsin Information Management 
System) then reports to the Federal 
government and returns management in¬ 
formation to the EOERD. While the 
State system is reported to be not fully 
user-friendly, the local agency could not 
afford to keep their own automated sys¬ 
tem, which they used for MIS until last 
year. The EOERD now uses some 
Macintosh units for their own purposes 
and clearly would like the capacity, once 
more, to operate their own MIS. 

Intake, assessment, and certification is 
performed by Careers, Inc. for the year- 
round JTPA program under a $446,000 
grant from EOERD. This activity is 
manual; the Test of Adult Basic Educa¬ 
tion (TABE) is the assessment instru¬ 
ment. 

Since program operators generally 
must take referrals from Careers, Inc., 
this organization has important influence 
over the providers’ success (e.g., 
Careers, Inc. determines which provider 
will get the learning disabled enrollees). 
SER’s door-to-door outreach must 
report to Careers in order to enter the 
system. 


Description of Exemplary 
Programs 

The Milwaukee OIC 

(1) Background 

During the current year, the Oppor¬ 
tunities Industrialization Center (OIC) 
of Greater Milwaukee is running four 
programs for EOERD: 

• Basic Education ($227,000); 

• Occupational Skill Training 
($227,000); 

• VICI Construction Training 
($125,000); and 

• Summer Youth ($42,875). 

OIC-Milwaukee has established the 
Learning Opportunities Center (LOC) 
as a wholly-owned subsidiary to provide 
basic skills education for the OIC opera¬ 
tion in Milwaukee. The Milwaukee OIC 
operation must comply with the perfor¬ 
mance based on placement per dollar, 
but LOC is paid on a "potential-slot hour" 
basis. As long as LOC has an enrolled 
student, they are paid $7.70 per hour ir¬ 
respective of attendance. Average atten¬ 
dance is about 60 percent. The overall 
concern with placement per dollar drives 
the OIC-Milwaukee to encourage the 
LOC to terminate those not attending. 
Dropouts are unlikely to be placed and, 
therefore, OIC’s costs are maintained 
while placements fall. To avoid this 
situation, OIC-Milwaukee pressures the 
LOC to fill the slots with students who 
will advance and be placed in jobs. 




89 


MILWAUKEE 


(2) Description of Service 

OIC’s Learning Center was the first 
CCP site in Wisconsin, and the Center’s 
Director is an important person in the 
CCP network, helping other providers to 
establish CCP and technology in their 
programs. JTPA is the Center’s primary 
client, but they have other students from 
Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) and 
from the State. These latter two con¬ 
tracts are approximately $70,000 and 
$100,000, respectively, bringing the 
Center’s total budget to about $400,000. 

The Learning Center is established in a 
refurbished movie house in the Black 
section of the city. Most of its clientele 
are Black, although some Hispanic and 
White students attend. The Center ser¬ 
ves youth exclusively. The Center direc¬ 
tor is a strong believer in professionalism 
and uses a certified teacher to work along 
with an aide in each class. However, she 
pays her teachers about 15 percent less 
for a 12-month year than local schools 
pay a teacher for a ten-month school 
year. 

The Center currently has the capacity to 
serve 39 students per session and runs 
three-hour sessions daily (currently, they 
have 97 slots filled). On this basis, the 
Center’s potential income is about 
$8,000 daily or about $2,000,000 annual- 

iy. 

(3) The Technology 

This LOC was a pioneer CCP site. The 
operation is a typical open-entry, open- 


exit CCP arrangement. It has both Apple 
and Computer Curriculum Corporation 
(CCC) equipment and courseware. 

The fact that the "cream is gone" is 
beginning to impact the OIC Learning 
Center. The director is, as a result, 
beginning to investigate IBM’s Prin¬ 
cipals of Alphabetic Literacy (PALS), an 
interactive videodisc program designed 
to teach the most basic literacy to adults. 
The key barrier is funding, and the direc¬ 
tor is looking to a foundation or other 
outside support for the $60,000 required 
to outfit a PALS lab. The first attempt 
will be to return to the Ford Foundation, 
which provided the initial funds to equip 
their CCP lab. Failing that, the business- 
community that supports the Milwaukee 
OIC will be asked to help. 

SER Job for Progress 

(1) Background 

The importance of "having the right guy 
in the right place at the right time" is 
clearly illustrated by the SER ex¬ 
perience. A decade ago, the current 
Director of the Information Center came 
to Milwaukee from South Texas to work 
for SER. After a few years he left to pur¬ 
sue his education in marketing at the 
University of Wisconsin at Madison. 
One of his last class assignments was to 
develop a marketing plan for a nonprofit 
or public agency. He chose SER and 
submitted his paper both to his profes¬ 
sors and to the SER Director. Both 
recipients were pleased and the "stu¬ 
dent" was invited to return to SER to im¬ 
plement his plan. Currently, SER has a 
highly diversified client base; has moved 
into an impressive, newly renovated 



MILWAUKEE 


90 


facility; and uses technology in a very 
sophisticated way. 

(2) Program 

SER is providing alternative education 
for the MPS, runs youth programs for 
Wisconsin’s Social Development Com¬ 
mission (SDC); is negotiating with the 
State Department of Health and Social 
Services to work with welfare clients 
under the State’s new welfare reform 
program; has contracts with the Mil¬ 
waukee Area Technical College 
(MATC); provides training for some of 
the homeless on work relief; and has a 
number of private clients. 

As a result of diversifying, JTPA funds 
are only about 40 percent of SER’s in¬ 
come of $1.1 million, and JTPA clients 
are about 40 percent of the 500 served 
annually by SER. Based on this diver¬ 
sified income base, SER was able to 
negotiate a long-term lease in a newly 
renovated building in the Hispanic part 
of town. As described below, SER also 
seeks to sell MIS services to the SER 
network and others. 

SER serves as a major resources to 
teach English as a Second Language, as 
well as serving some Black and White 
clients. The total client body is about 50 
percent Hispanic, 25 percent White, 20 
percent Black, and 5 percent other 
minorities. 

SER also runs programs for senior 
citizens (Title V) and has ambitious 
plans for a day care center to serve 
children of enrollees, children of those 


placed by SER, and as an after school 
program for MPS. SER also intends to 
initiate a Family Learning Center at this 
site, as described below. 

Technology 

SER’s experience with computer-based 
instruction began during CETA, using 
PLATO. IBM was one of the Friends of 
SER in Milwaukee and supported them 
with a grant of IBM typewriters to estab¬ 
lish a program under the business plan 
that had been drafted. SER has now es¬ 
tablished a CCP program and is install¬ 
ing network IBM PS-25s in their 
Learning Center. 

SER has evidently decided to make a 
major push with technology, both for 
delivering instruction and to serve the 
SER network and others. With assis¬ 
tance from a Department of Labor grant 
to national SER for workplace literacy, 
they are establishing a Family Learning 
Center (FLC) to serve both single 
parents and their preschool and school- 
age children. The FLC is expected to be 
operational in February. 

Parents will be presented with PALS on 
IBM’s InfoWindow system (two units 
are installed) and will have access to IBM 
PS-25s to do writing and other exercises 
in the PALS program. While the parents 
are learning to read, their preschool, 
kindergarten, and grade children will be 
using PS-25s in another room with Writ- 
ing-to-Read (developed by the same per¬ 
son who developed PALS for adults). 
These PS-25s will be networked to a PS- 


91 


MILWAUKEE 


60 file server, along with the CCP Learn¬ 
ing Center machines. 

SER will provide a rich day care and 
after school program with technology- 
supported education for the youngsters, 
along with state-of-the-art training for 
parents and youth. Programmatically, 
SER will serve JTPA, the MPS, and 
State’s welfare reform effort, and others 
on SER-owned hardware with a diverse 
set of courseware. 

In addition to serving their own client 
base, SER wishes to market their grow¬ 
ing capability to help other providers use 
technology to support instruction. Thus, 
SER is developing a capacity to help 
others implement computer-based and 
interactive videodisc-based curriculum, 
select appropriate course materials, and 
modify materials so that it can be tailored 
to local conditions and requirements. 

Finally, the Milwaukee SER is using 
part of a DOL grant to establish a SER 
National Information Center. They have 
acquired an IBM 4381 with networking 
capacity to serve, through modems, SER 
affiliates and others who wish to buy a 
variety of services. Program tools in¬ 
clude: (a) Professional Office System 
(PROFS); (b) an electronic mail, time 
management, and document search sys¬ 
tem that works with Display Write 370 
word processing; and (c) a user-friendly 
"application system” designed to help 
users create decision support systems. 
Users will be charged a combination of 
subscriber fees and utilization charges. 


Major Barriers 


Four important barriers to the use of 
technology are described below, along 
with the solutions found in Milwaukee. 
In addition to these specific solutions, 
there were two overarching reasons why 
these barriers were overcome. In both 
the OIC and SER cases, there was a 
"champion" for a vision in which technol¬ 
ogy played a part. In the case of SER, the 
vision was a diversified clientele and in¬ 
come base; for OIC, it was profes¬ 
sionalism. Thus, technology was a tool, 
not an end in itself. 

In both cases, there was support from 
management for the overall vision. That 
support provided time for the needed 
development processes. Both organiza¬ 
tions also benefited from a supportive 
board and a supportive environment in 
the SDA. Both organizations had been 
operating in Milwaukee for a long period 
of time and have good working relation¬ 
ships with their respective national 
organizations. 

The first major barrier was finding 
resources — money, time, and expertise. 
In both cases, outside sources provided 
funds and expertise and connections with 
a network of other technology users. For 
SER, it was IBM and most recently, the 
DOL literacy grant through national 
SER. For OIC, it was the Ford Founda¬ 
tion and the Remediation and Training 
Institute. 

Next in importance was a lack of 
flexibility -- barrier to using the resour¬ 
ces to get the job of training effectively. 
SER and OIC were able to be flexible in 



MILWAUKEE 


92 


the use of the equipment they obtained 
because the hardware was purchased 
without JTPA program funds. That is, 
they could increase the utilization rate by 
letting both JTPA and non-clients use 
the machines. 

The third barrier was the lack of a set of 
performance criteria that measured 
progress against a realistic objective. 
Grade-level reading, for example, often 
does not correlate well with job perfor¬ 
mance. On the other hand, the place¬ 
ment per dollar criterion does not reflect 
competencies gained. Because their 
respective overall programs were strong, 
the technology-based programs at OIC 
and SER could stay alike in the place- 
ment/dollar environment. Paradoxical¬ 
ly, the tighter labor marker may make it 
more difficult if the parent organization 
is forced to serve more of those who 
need lengthy training in basic skills. That 
is, as "the cream is gone", so is that pool 
that could be easily (and inexpensively) 
placed. 

Fourth was the absence of stability in 
JTPA (or predecessor) programs or in¬ 
centives to invest in a new way of doing 
things that required up front expendi¬ 
tures and promised delayed benefits 
after a difficult development period. 
OIC got around JTPA’s lack of stability 
by becoming a premiere site for CCP 
with stable funding from Ford. SER 
diversified its client base. The next few 
years may indicate which was the supe¬ 
rior strategy. 


Success Factors 


A variety of factors must come together 
for those who pioneer. "Serendipity" 
says one pioneer, but it also needed 
someone there to take advantage of the 
opportunity and a supportive manage¬ 
ment environment. "A dedication to 
professionalism" says another, but she 
too needed support and good fortune. 

The "champion" must have the 
psychological and institutional capacity 
to take risks and do things differently 
than they have been done before. Risk¬ 
taking is not a hallmark of government 
programs in general and JTPA in par¬ 
ticular. As technology becomes more 
and more familiar, the need to be a risk- 
taker will become less stringent, but it is 
crucial today. 

The two successes had management 
support, a necessary but no sufficient 
condition for success. This support was 
partially achieved by the risk-taker’s 
ability to bring in outside resources 
and/or funding. There must be resour¬ 
ces that are not tied to day-to-day jus¬ 
tification nor bound with detailed 
bureaucratic restrictions. The two suc¬ 
cesses had untied funds from a founda¬ 
tion (e.g., Ford) or company (e.g., IMB). 
A network for both technical and moral 
support (e.g., the CCP network) is also 
helpful. 

Perhaps the most important element 
for success is a goal that the champion 
holds and that is shared by the organiza¬ 
tional management. Technology should 
be seen as an important tool toward 
achieving the goal and part of the solu- 





93 


MILWAUKEE 


tion to a perceived problem, not an end 
to be sought by itself. Thus, OIC seeks 
PALS because their student body needs 
more basic literacy training; not the other 
way around. In Wall Street parlance, the 
organization must be market -- not tech¬ 
nology — driven. 

Final Comments 


Success requires patience to work out 
the bugs, the capacity to evolve with the 
technology, and flexibility. 

These organizations (SER/IBM and 
OIC/RTI) expect replication to occur 
elsewhere in the JTPA system. There 
has to be some capacity for local 
modification to give the local operator a 
sense of participation, as well as to meet 
local conditions. Yet the basic technol¬ 
ogy configuration that is being tested in 
both organizations can be used again and 
again if the organization can find an out¬ 


side, generally unrestricted, source of 
funds. 

The important variables are the ability 
to obtain technical and financial sup¬ 
port, the characteristics of the student 
body (e.g., limited English proficient or 
native Americans), and the degree and 
kind of independence sought. Buying 
into IBM moves the organization along 
one road for technology and software, 
but also provides room for evolution 
regarding objectives and evaluation. 
Buying into RTI moves the organization 
into a specific system structure for objec¬ 
tives (i.e., the CCP strands) but provides 
hardware flexibility and some ability to 
integrate new third-party software as it 
becomes available. 

The configuration used in each of these 
two modes can be replicated and 
modified, but the constraints each 
present should be carefully evaluated. 













































95 


GARY JOB CORPS CENTER 


Introduction 


Located in the foothills of central Texas, 
the Gary Job Corps Center is the second 
largest in the country, serving 
approximately 2,200 Corpsmembers. 
Education and training is provided in six 
areas: 

• Automotive Trades 

• Building Trades 

• Construction Trades 

• Manufacturing Trades 

• Office Occupations 

• Service Occupations 

Established in the mid-1960s at the 
former Camp Gary Air Force Base, built 
during World War II, the Center has a 
tradition of stability and good com¬ 
munity relations. 

Since its creation, the Gary Job Corps 
Center has been operated by the non¬ 
profit Texas Education Foundation 
(TEF), which also operates Texas Job 
Corps centers in McKinney and El Paso. 
TEF has a staff of more than 700 
employees involved in Job Corps ac¬ 
tivities. It has a special relationship with 
the national Job Corps office in that it 
operates the Data Center which collects 
data and reports on Corpsmembers and 
their placement for all of the Job Corps 
centers. Recently, several former TEF 
staff (with its blessing) recently estab¬ 
lished a firm, Data5, which has 
developed a Job Corps Management In¬ 


formation System (MIS), designed for 
use on microcomputers, which is similar 
to the MIS originally developed for use 
on a mainframe at Gary. Over the years, 
both the TEF and Gary have developed 
strong ties with the surrounding com¬ 
munity, including the city of San Marcos 
which owns land -- used for an airport 
and country club -- adjacent to the 900- 
acre Job Corps facility. Over the last few 
years, the Texas Employment Commis¬ 
sion (TEC) and Gary have also 
developed a cooperative relationship. 
The TEC, which is a major recruitment 
contractor and provides placement ser¬ 
vices for the Job Corps Center, has a full¬ 
time person assigned to a field office at 
Gary. The Gary TEC office has on-line 
access to the TEC state job bank. Gary 
Job Corps officials are active with the 
state, serving on the Governor’s Task 
Force on Literacy, and have made 
numerous presentations relating to tech¬ 
nology use at state and local education 
conferences focusing on computer use in 
education and training. 

Administration 

The Gary Job Corps Center provides 
comprehensive services for Corps- 
members, including room and board, 
health, education, training, recruitment, 
and placement. The Education and 
Training Division Director has been in¬ 
volved in Job Corps activities for almost 
two decades and has eight years of ser¬ 
vice at Gary. In addition to more than 




GARY JOB CORPS 


96 


130 instructors for occupational areas, 
the Education and Training Division has 
two vocational counselors, two systems 
analysts, and 20 additional staff who 
provide placement, special programs, 
and other support activities for the over¬ 
all education and training program. The 
Education and Training Division has 
several facilities which are primarily 
dedicated to GED, reading, and math 
programs. Reading and math programs 
are also conducted in facilities which 
provide occupational training. All of the 
administrators at Gary have extensive ex- 
perience in operating Job Corps 
programs, a factor which has contributed 
to the team approach used to solve the 
myriad of problems Corpsmembers 
bring to the Center when they enroll. 
Most Gary staff have had prior ex¬ 
perience dealing with at-risk youth while 
they were in the armed services or with 
Texas public schools. 

General Use of Technology 

The Gary Job Corps Center was one of 
the first to use computers and related 
technology in its education and training 
programs. During the late 1970s, under 
the national Job Corps Education Im¬ 
provement Effort (EIE), Gary served as 
a pilot site for the original PLATO sys¬ 
tem, which was used on a time-shared 
basis. Subsequently, the Center ac¬ 
quired lessons similar to PLATO which 
operated on the University of Illinois’s 
Computer-based Educational Research 
Lab (CERL) "cluster program", which 
consisted of PLATO CAI lessons con¬ 
verted to operate on CERL equipment. 
In the early 1980s, Gary purchased a 


Honeywell microcomputer which is used 
in GED math and reading programs. 

Computer technology is also used in oc¬ 
cupational training, including business 
trades (e.g., data entry, typing/word 
processing) and other areas. Today, 
Gary has more than 100 computers 
and/or terminals. 

The comprehensive Gary Job Corps 
MIS, developed several years ago by the 
TEF, was the first of its kind. The types 
of reports (required by Job Corps) which 
can be generated by the Gary MIS are: 

• Corps Members Accountability 
System for anticipated arrivals 
and new arrivals, including 
various demographic data; 

• Daily Accountability Morning 
reports, including Daily Status 
Reports, AWOL lists, probation 
lists, separations, AWOL letter 
to next-of-kin, among others; 

• Various statistical summary and 
on-line reports such as Corps 
member demographic informa¬ 
tion, output by residential area 
and categories, and Corps mem¬ 
ber occupancy summaries; 

• Performance Standards 
Reports, including reports on 
losses, summary statistics, and 
projections; 

• Corps member Class Scheduling 
System, including class rosters, 
counselor schedules, and class 
assignment loads; 

• Corps member Testing System, 
including TABE, progress 


97 


GARY JOB CORPS 


reports, schedules, and GED 
enrollment lists; 

• Corps member Profile/Training 
Achievement Records, includ¬ 
ing training achievement 
records (TARs), progress 
rosters, profile records; 

• Utility Update, including master 
course list, TABE, testing 
schedule, TAR element listing. 

In addition to its MIS, Gary has on-line 
access, through the TEC field office, to 
the TEC state data base, which is used for 
two purposes: (1) assistance in job 
placement; and (2) conducting follow-up 
on placements three months after ter¬ 
mination from Gary. This latter 
capability represents an early attempt by 
Gary to establish a program evaluation 
for assessing job performance and reten¬ 
tion of its Corpsmembers after job 
placement. While Gary staff have con¬ 
sidered accessing employment service 
job banks in other states, their priority to 
is ensure that Corpsmembers’ resumes 
and other information is included in ap¬ 
propriate job banks prior to a 
Corpsmember returning to his or her 
home state. Plans are underway to for¬ 
malize this process for Arkansas, 
Louisiana, Mexico, and Oklahoma, all of 
which are in the Gary Job Corps region. 

The Gary MIS, and specifically the 
Corpsmember Information System 
(CIS), has an on-line capacity to provide 
information to, and access information 
from, the TEF Job Corps Data Center, 
which is maintained on the TEF 
Honeywell mainframe computer. 
Various types of information about 
Corpsmembers progress is reported 


directly to the Data Center, including 
weekly reports on TABE administration. 
The Gary Center has direct, on-line 
capability for updating student records 
directly with the TEF Data Center. The 
TEF is currently assessing the feasibility 
of direct, on-line linkages with other Job 
Corps centers around the country and to 
link the Data Center to the Army 
Finance Center, which is the payroll dis¬ 
tribution center for Job Corpsmembers. 
The TEF-operated Data Center is also 
assessing (with various Job Corps 
screening placement coordinators) the 
feasibility of on-line access to the 200 
plus recruitment and placement agencies 
under contract to the 106 Job Corps 
centers across the country. Ap¬ 
proximately 30 Job Corps centers have 
installed tne Data5 Job Corps MIS. This 
effort by Data5 is being supported by the 
national Job Corps office, even though 
no specific funds have been made avail¬ 
able to centers for installing the system. 

The use of computers in assessment and 
counseling varies and is determined 
after ^students are placed in programs. 
For example, when Corpsmembers en¬ 
roll at Gary and receive the one- to two- 
week vocational selection program, the 
TABE is scored (with Scantron test-scor¬ 
ing equipment) and the results are sent 
to the Data Center. Later, when stu¬ 
dents are placed in reading programs, 
Job Corps screening and diagnostic tests 
for reading are computer-scored and 
prescriptions provided to teachers for 
student placement in the program. The 
Scantron equipment is also used with the 
Honeywell network software to conduct 
audit checks on TABE results before 
they are transmitted to the Data Center. 


GARY JOB CORPS 


98 


The program will detect whether a stu¬ 
dent has followed directions or had dif¬ 
ficulty marking the responses heavily 
enough to be scanned by the equipment. 

Description of Program 

The objective of the education and 
training program at Gary, as in most Job 
Corps centers, is to prepare Corpsmem- 
bers for, and place them in, jobs. In ad¬ 
dition to occupational training in the six 
cluster areas, Corpsmembers receive 
basic skills instruction and GED 
preparation services. 

Corpsmembers receive a minimum of 
six months of training and related ser¬ 
vices, up to a maximum of 24 months 
(plus an additional four months, in cer¬ 
tain cases, when waivers are provided). 
The length of training depends on the 
trade selected and the participant’s rate 
of progress. 

During the first two weeks, the 
Corpsmember receives orientation, in¬ 
cluding career counseling to select an oc¬ 
cupational cluster, and various types of 
testing and assessment. Counseling and 
assessment rely heavily on the Picture 
Interest Exploratory Survey (PIES), an 
instrument which includes more than 
160 slides of activities occurring in dif¬ 
ferent occupational clusters which the 
member rates in terms of personal 
preference. With assistance from a 
counselor, the results are used to focus 
on specific vocational areas for each 
Corpsmember. 

Each Corpsmember also takes the RJS 
(reading) and MJS (math) tests, 


described below, for initial screening 
purposes. Additional tests are ad¬ 
ministered for placement in specific 
math or reading program, as described 
later. In addition, the Corpsmember is 
also administered the TABE within a 
week after the RJS or MJS. Then, the 
TABE is administered three times 
during the year at each scheduled inter¬ 
view. 

Once the Corpsmember is assigned to a 
vocational cluster, he or she usually 
spends half of each day in nonvocational 
subjects including reading, math, and (if 
appropriate) ESL supplemental 
programs. In addition, the member 
receives instruction related to the world 
of work, including basic skills related to 
his or her specific vocational cluster. 
Additional information and instruction is 
provided in such areas as cultural aware¬ 
ness and health. 

Depending on the trade selected, the 
Corpsmember progresses to an inter¬ 
mediate vocational program for one-half 
day, at a minimum. At this point, if the 
member does not have a high school 
diploma or GED equivalency, he or she 
participates in a GED preparation 
program not tied to any specific voca¬ 
tional cluster. In addition, he or she 
receives health-related instruction (e.g., 
physical education), driver education if 
appropriate, vocational area instruction 
(e.g., crafts), and/or leadership training 
(up to one week) designed for 
Corpsmembers who become active in 
campus student government activities. 

The Corpsmember then enters the ad¬ 
vanced vocational training phase, which 



99 


GARY JOB CORPS 


typically includes three-fourths of a day 
heavily involved in vocational cluster 
training. In many instances, the 
Corpsmember may serve as an aide to 
the instructor. 

Usually one week before being assigned 
to work experience activities, the 
Corpsmember receives advanced job 
orientation focusing on specific skills re¬ 
quired for holding jobs. Upon comple¬ 
tion of this phase, the Corpsmember 
serves approximately six weeks in a work 
experience environment, usually 
provided by a local employer who treats 
the Corpsmember as an (unpaid) 
employee. 

During these latter two phases, Job 
Corps and TEC placement specialists 
work with Corpsmembers to provide 
placement services. 

Description of 
Computer Use 

Computer-based instructional delivery 
has existed at the Gary Job Corps Center 
since the early 1980s. The EIE pilot 
program used the PLATO CAI lessons 
to provide GED, as well as basic math 
and reading instruction, on a time- 
shared basis. PLATO hardware and 
software were provided to Gary for the 
pilot program by the national Job Corps 
office. After the pilot program, Center 
staff decided the on-line telecommunica¬ 
tions costs for the PLATO system were 
not affordable and, hence, acquired the 
"cluster system" which included several 
hundred PLATO lessons. Through the 
efforts of CERL and Gary, more than 


130 lessons were converted to operate on 
the CERL system, which consists of 28 
CDC terminals tied into a Motorola 
(EXORACS) computer with a hard disc. 
This equipment is being used in GED 
preparation, reading, and mathematics 
programs. 

In addition to the cluster system and 
CDC equipment, Gary currently has 
approximately 20 ADDS terminals com¬ 
mitted to the Honeywell minicomputer, 
which is used for both instruction and 
MIS. 

Program Impact 

The impact of technology use at Gary 
has been both multifaceted and variable 
over time. When the PLATO on-line 
program was used in the GED program, 
class sizes were increased from 15 to 25 
students, with between 95 and 98 per¬ 
cent of the Corpsmembers successfully 
passing the test the first time. Accord¬ 
ing to staff and observers, CAI lessons 
have been most effective in preparing 
limited English proficient participants — 
particularly Hispanics and Asians -- for 
the GED. A 1984 evaluation of the 
CAI/CMI program, conducted by Center 
staff, reported additional impacts which 
are indications of improved instructional 
programs (NCEP, 1985): 

• increased student time on task 
as a result of increased student 
motivation and ability to 
measure success in discrete skill 
development. 

• a 60 percent increase in the 
number of students served per 



GARY JOB CORPS 


100 


year, particularly in the GED 
program; 

• creation of an environment in 
which students proceed at their 
own rates and become 
motivated to succeed; and 

• increased teacher-participant 
contact time as a result of the 
computer-managed instruction¬ 
al system. 

The specific impact of computer-based 
instruction is difficult to ascertain from 
existing records. Only recently have 
Gary officials been able to track the 
number of hours of computer-based in¬ 
struction students receive. Moreover, 
because of the lack of hardware, less than 
50 percent of members who participate 
in the GED reading programs have ac¬ 
cess to computer-based instruction. The 
recent education report for Gary indi¬ 
cates that the average entry-level grade 
is 5.8 for reading and 6.2 for math. In 
reading, members average over one 
month gain per month in the program, 
and in math almost two months gain for 
each month. Approximately 75 percent 
of the Corpsmembers at Gary are 
placed. Slightly more than 80 percent of 
Corpsmembers eligible (i.e., academi¬ 
cally prepared) for the GED passed the 
test. 

GED Program 

The GED program is not integrated 
into or operated physically in the oc¬ 
cupational cluster sites, but rather in 
three nearby facilities. Twelve of the 
terminals used in the GED program are 
tied to the cluster program while five ter¬ 
minals are linked to the Honeywell com¬ 


puter. Ninety-five percent of the cluster 
programs’ CAI lessons were developed 
by the CERL, with the remainder 
developed locally by Gary staff. Most of 
the GED lessons on the Honeywell were 
developed by Gary staff. In addition to 
the above equipment, three Apple com¬ 
puters are available for use in the GED 
program. Gary staff have access to some 
of the same software that has been pur¬ 
chased by the national office for use in 
the ten sites involved in the CAI evalua¬ 
tion project. Commonly used titles in¬ 
clude "Oregon Trail", "Where in the 
World is Carmen San Diego?", and 
others. The Gary GED program is un¬ 
dergoing some significant changes as a 
result of the new GED test which is 
being administered beginning in January 
1988. 

Currently, there are approximately 12 
CAI lessons for each of the five GED 
areas (grammar, social studies, science, 
math, and reading). Gary GED teachers 
-- who were involved in reviewing 
software for the CAI evaluation project 
-- expressed their desire to use new 
software titles in the GED program; 
however, because of the lack of funds, 
not enough hardware is currently avail¬ 
able. A Gary staff member is on the Job 
Corps GED Advisory Group. 

Reading 

As described below, the most innova¬ 
tive use of technology at Gary is in the 
reading program, which uses computers 
for both direct instruction and instruc¬ 
tional management, including scoring of 
tests using Scantron equipment. Ap¬ 
proximately 40 CAI lessons, developed 


101 


GARY JOB CORPS 


by Gary staff for use on the Honeywell 
network, are used extensively for drill- 
and-practice and tutorial purposes. 
They are designed to motivate students 
through the use of high-interest material 
and build upon situations related to 
Corps life at Gary. Computer responses 
and questions are designed specifically 
for at-risk youth living in Job Corps en¬ 
vironments. In addition to the locally- 
developed programs, approximately 70 
CERL CAI lessons are used extensively 
in the reading program. 

Some of the most extensive users of the 
CAI programs are the 200 plus 
Corpsmembers who have limited 
English proficiency, including Hispanic 
Americans, Mexican nationals, and 
Asians, among others. Instructors 
believe that the primary advantages of 
CAI with these populations are: (1) the 
computer’s infinite patience to ad¬ 
minister repetitious lessons; and (2) the 
lack of stigmatization and intimidation 
often associated with teacher-provided 
instruction. 

In all instances, the CAI system is used 
to supplement the traditional print and 
other materials included in the Job Corps 
reading program manual, which all 
Centers must follow. Integration of CAI 
into the Job Corps’ reading program was 
facilitated by an instructional manage¬ 
ment system developed by Gary staff five 
years ago. For the typical Corpsmem- 
ber, the RJS-1 screening test (reading) is 
administered during orientation, along 
with the JCRP. Information from these 
two tests is provided to the reading 
program staff, who in turn determine 
which level of diagnostic test is to be ad¬ 


ministered to the students for placement. 
Once administered, the diagnostic tests 
are scored automatically. Class assign¬ 
ments are then keyed to specific lessons 
plans for the Corpsmember and printed 
on DEC writers. 

In addition to the instructional manage¬ 
ment system, Gary staff also developed 
software to interface with the Center 
MIS. This set of software routines al¬ 
lows the staff to monitor student progress 
on a weekly basis and track student flow 
on an hour-by-hour basis. This system 
was developed in response to a need for 
improved student tracking to relate stu¬ 
dent progress to time on task. 

The reading program at Gary is one of 
the most innovative in the Job Corps. 
Integration of CAI lessons is facilitated 
by the instructional management system 
which prescribes lessons and activities at 
a much more specific level than such 
other widely used instructional manage¬ 
ment systems as the CCP. 

Math Program 

The math program at Gary, located in 
two facilities, has approximately ten ter¬ 
minals. Four terminals are linked to the 
cluster program while five terminals are 
on the Honeywell network. The CAI les- 
sons are a combination of those 
developed by CERL and Center staff. 

The CERL CAI lessons used in Gary 
are very similar to the PLATO math 
program used in the EIE project during 
the early 1980s. CAI lessons cover such 
traditional math curriculum as fractions, 
decimals, ratios, geometry, and measure- 


GARY JOB CORPS 


102 


ment. Supplementing the CERL lessons 
are approximately 40 CAI lessons (basi¬ 
cally drill-and-practice) developed by 
Gary staff. The content of drill-and- 
practice CAI lessons is designed to relate 
to Corpsmembers’ experiences at the 
Gary Job Corps Center, and occupation¬ 
al areas that Corpsmembers will likely 
experience after being placed on the job. 
These drill-and-pratice lessons cover 
such topics as whole numbers, fractions, 
and measurement. 

Unlike in the reading program, the 
math program does not use computers 
for instructional management to diag¬ 
nose Corpsmembers’ strengths and 
weaknesses or describe individualized 
lesson plans. However, prior to being 
placed in the math program, Corpsmem¬ 
bers who take the MJSI (initial screen¬ 
ing) and MJS2 (placement) tests have 
their tests scored by Scantron’s equip¬ 
ment interfaced with the computer. 

The Gary Center education and train¬ 
ing staff have considered developing a 
math instructional management system 
similar to that in reading. However, they 
have postponed development for a num¬ 
ber of reasons, including: (a) inade¬ 
quate staff resources; and (b) limited 
benefits of such a system because they 
would have to use outdated equipment. 
They would prefer to purchased and/or 
adapt such an instructional management 
system for use on newer equipment, 
when and if it becomes available. 

Occupational Training 

Gary has attempted to integrate basic 
skills into occupational training. Com¬ 


puter-assisted instruction is used to sup¬ 
plement regular Job Corps reading 
materials in these occupational areas. 

One prime example is the data entry 
trade skills areas, where approximately 
16 terminals, tied into the Honeywell, are 
used to provide data entry training. In¬ 
termediate level students who need to 
improve reading skills prior to continua¬ 
tion in the data entry program can do so 
in the reading lab, or can use sup¬ 
plemental CAI software on five MS- 
DOS machines in the data entry facility. 
Some of the software packages used in 
this program are those published by 
Electronic Arts, McGraw-Hill, South¬ 
west Publishing, and Steck-Vaughn. In 
several other occupational cluster areas, 
Corpsmembers can access reading les¬ 
sons, available through the Honeywell, 
to improve reading skills, while they are 
concurrently receiving vocational train¬ 
ing. While computers are not currently 
used in the world-of-work programs, in¬ 
structors have modified the basic world- 
of-work program to use terminology, 
skills, and activities from specific occupa¬ 
tional areas which are the focus of world 
of work orientation and job preparation 
activities. 

Barriers 


At Gary, there are two major barriers to 
technology use. 

Funding 

Through the EIE project, the Center 
was provided PLATO hardware and 
software. However, due to the high on¬ 
line data transmission and telecom- 



103 


GARY JOB CORPS 


munications costs associated with 
PLATO (lessons were available only 
through telephone lines to CDC in Min¬ 
neapolis) and the lack of national fund¬ 
ing to cover this cost, at the completion 
of the project Gary was forced to adopt 
the cluster CAI lessons which CERL was 
willing to convert. 

Funding is a major problem constrain¬ 
ing the purchase of new computer 
hardware. While the TEF contract 
covers many operations and main¬ 
tenance costs, capital equipment funds 
are allocated to centers at the nation¬ 
al/regional level. Periodically, the Job 
Corps conducts facilities surveys and, 
based on relative needs within a region, 
allocates funds to "capital equipment". 
It is extremely difficult to get approval for 
computer and related technology equip¬ 
ment purchases when other equipment 
(e.g., bulldozers), facilities refurbishing, 
and other higher priority requirements 
exist. As a result, instructional equip¬ 
ment usually receives a lower priority in 
the budget allocation process. 
Moreover, Gary equipment priorities 
change because of advances in technol¬ 
ogy or breakdowns in existing equip¬ 
ment. The reprogramming process 
could be very time consuming and, in 
many cases, serves as a disincentive to 
changes in computer-related equip¬ 
ment. 

In an attempt to overcome this problem 
and obtain funding support for technol¬ 
ogy in the future, Gary officials have at¬ 
tempted to identify more clearly their 
needs and justifications to ensure that 
such needs are clearly stated prior to 


funding allocation decisions at the 
regional DOL office. 

Obsolete Equipment 

The cluster system design is more than 
five years old. Although the hardware is 
only three and a half years old, it suffers 
from hardware obsolescence and in¬ 
creased maintenance and repair costs, 
which put a significant strain on both 
teachers (frustrations related to equip¬ 
ment down time) and support staff (who 
are responsible for maintaining the 
equipment). Use of obsolete equipment 
has presented a problem for Gary staff. 
Few new software packages are available 
for existing hardware; so Gary staff con¬ 
tinue to develop CAI lessons while 
realizing that their use will be limited be¬ 
cause of hardware obsolescence. 

Because of high equipment downtime, 
costs and staff time associated with 
maintenance and repair have increased 
dramatically. Some of these costs are 
being covered by the department respon¬ 
sible for MIS. As a result, fewer and 
fewer terminals networked within the 
MIS are being used for instructional pur¬ 
poses since "he who pays the bill gets the 
priority." 

Given these problems, Gary officials 
are considering a variety of alternative 
approaches to overcoming them. First, 
education and training officials have at¬ 
tempted to design a new facility to mini¬ 
mize operating and related costs (e.g., 
air conditioning, security system, wiring) 
of computer-based delivery systems. By 
doing so, they hope to reduce the over¬ 
all investment needed for technology. 


GARY JOB CORPS 


104 


Second, officials have contacted the 
General Services Administration, 
hoping to identify surplus equipment 
which could be used to replace existing, 
obsolete equipment. Third, discussions 
have been conducted with University of 
Illinois (CERL) to assess the feasibility 
of further lessons development and con¬ 
version of CAI lessons. The use of 
CERL’s NovaNET, which distributes 
PLATO lessons via satellite, has also 
been discussed. While this alternative 
could result in the use of familiar and 
proven CAI courseware, it would re¬ 
quire the purchase of new hardware be¬ 
cause CERL no longer supports cluster 
hardware. 

Success Factors 


A number of staff characteristics have 
contributed significantly to the 
program’s success and its effective use of 
technology. Gary staff are very 
knowledgeable about Job Corps’ basic 
skills programs and have a wide range of 
experience and expertise. Of the ad¬ 
ministrative staff, most have had be¬ 
tween 15 and 20 years of experience in 
Job Corps center operations across the 
country and virtually all key staff have 
been at Gary for the last ten years. 
Moreover, key administrators are ex¬ 
perienced teachers and keep abreast of 
current developments in the use of tech¬ 
nology and basic skills instruction. As a 
result of this in-depth staff experience 
and expertise, program administration is 
relatively informal and based on team 
work with significant administrative sup¬ 
port. Considerable fexibility is allowed 
for experienced staff to experiment and 


modify programs to meet their own or 
Corpsmembers’ specific needs. 

Staff are dedicated, not only to Job 
Corps programs, but also to the ap¬ 
propriate use of technology. Staff are en¬ 
couraged to participate in experimental 
efforts which are considered important 
in personnel evaluations. Currently, 
Gary staff: (1) are involved in the nation¬ 
al GED Advisory Committee, which is 
redesigning Job Corps programs to meet 
requirements of the new GED test; (2) 
have participated in the development 
and field-testing of the culinary arts 
training manual; (3) have recently as¬ 
sisted in the validation of a reading 
program for a major publisher; (4) have 
participated in numerous experimental 
control studies funded by the Job Corps, 
including the Educational Initiative Ef¬ 
fort; and (5) have taken an active role in 
developing the courseware evaluation 
form and conducting software evalua¬ 
tions involved in the design of the CAI 
evaluation project. 

Key Staff Roles 

Gary staff have played roles over time 
which have resulted in an expanded and 
more effective use of technology in their 
education and training programs. 
During the early 1980s, the administrator 
of the program served as an advocate for 
appropriate use of technology and en¬ 
couraged staff participation in national 
Job Corps experiments and the develop¬ 
ment of CAI lessons on the Honeywell 
equipment. While this leadership at the 
highest level has not waned, the nature of 
problems has created a need for addi¬ 
tional roles which have been largely filled 



105 


GARY JOB CORPS 


by the Director of the Computer Learn¬ 
ing Center. This individual, who has 
considerable programming expertise, as¬ 
sists instructional staff either by cus¬ 
tomizing lessons to fit better into their 
programs or by developing "gap filling" 
drill-and-practice and other lessons at 
the request of individual instructors. 
Over time, this individual has also been 
responsible for trouble shooting ob¬ 
solete equipment to minimize down 
time, particularly since the vendor 
(CERL) of the cluster system no longer 
provides direct system support. This 
trouble-shooting role has increasingly 
become critical as two or three terminals 
typically "crash" each day; there would 
be even more frustration, if it were not 
for his timely repairing of equipment. 
This individual has also taken the initia¬ 
tive to develop programs which will allow 
the education and training staff to access 
the overall MIS and use existing data 
more effectively for student tracking and 
program evaluation. This individual also 
continues to develop simple drill-and- 
practice lessons when a need is per¬ 
ceived. This individual is, of course, also 
responsible for operating the Computer 
Learning Center. 

Special Relationships 

Another factor contributing to the suc¬ 
cess of Gary’s programs and, in certain 
cases, the use of technology is the special 
relationships it has developed with other 
key groups. Due to Gary’s willingness to 
participate in Job Corps pilot 
demonstrations and experiments, it has 
received a great deal of free hardware 
and software. The Texas Education 
Foundation, which operates Gary, has a 


unique relationship with the national Job 
Corps office in that it currently operates 
the Data Center for all Job Corps 
centers. Even though Data5 is a separate 
company, it remains closely associated 
with TEF and enjoys a unique relation¬ 
ship with the national Job Corps office, 
which encourages other centers to estab¬ 
lish management information systems. 
The Center has also developed a special 
relationship with the Texas Employ¬ 
ment Commission, which has a staff 
member physically located at Gary. 
These relationships, developed over 
time, are based on mutually beneficial 
arrangements which have contributed to 
an environment in which financial and 
other support, including expansion of 
computer-based activities, has been 
provided at critical times. 

Closing Comments 

One of the lessons learned from the 
Gary experience is that there exist a 
price associated with being an innovator. 
Gary was one of the first centers to use 
computers in education, as part of the 
EIE pilot demonstration, through which 
it was provided free PLATO hardware 
and software. However, because funds 
were not available to defray data trans¬ 
mission costs, Gary was forced to adopt a 
reconfigured version of the PLATO sys¬ 
tem which is no longer supported by the 
vendor. Maintenance and repair 
problems have drained Gary staff and 
budgets; existing commercial software, 
which Gary staff would like to use does 
not execute on their outdated hardware. 
On the other hand, were it not for the 
EIE demonstration project, funding 



GARY JOB CORPS 


106 


constraints may have kept technology use 
at Gary at a lower level than it is now. 

Another related lesson is that staff who 
are dedicated and have the necessary ex¬ 
pertise can make maximum use of equip- 
ment, even if it is obsolete and 
incompatible with current software. 
Moreover, a persistent staff dedicated to 
the appropriate and effective use of tech¬ 
nology can harness the resources and ex¬ 
pertise to expand the use of computer for 
both instruction and instructional 
management. 

Gary staff have identified a number of 
design features of computer-based con¬ 
figurations which would be most effec¬ 
tive in a Job Corps setting, including: 

• an instructional management 
system with the capacity to diag¬ 
nose and prescribe lessons in an 
automated manner, track the in¬ 
dividual progress of students, 
and provide access to the 
general MIS; this would reduce 
staff time and paper work bur¬ 
den and would increase student 
contact time; 

• network configurations which 
are open and provide oppor¬ 
tunities for vendor, as well as 
third-party, software to be in¬ 
tegrated and used on the net¬ 
work; this would reduce 
software costs through licensing 
arrangements, and allow staff to 
update the program as new 
software becomes available;and 

• commercially-available software 
which lends itself to individual¬ 


ized, student-directed instruc¬ 
tion and can be correlated, on a 
lesson level, with Job Corps 
reading and math program 
manuals. 

Replication of the Gary instruction and 
instructional management software in 
its current form would be difficult be¬ 
cause of the lack of vendor-supported 
hardware. Several components, 
however, could be replicated for use in 
other centers or elsewhere. For ex¬ 
ample, the reading instructional 
management system, which operates on 
Honeywell hardware, would only re¬ 
quire the development of appropriate 
documentation for use elsewhere. With 
minimal funding support, Gary staff 
argue that the CAI reading lessons could 
be converted to operate on other 
hardware. 

While the cluster CAI lessons are not 
available for commercial, stand-alone 
hardware, CERL has established Nova- 
Net, a satellite-based telecommunica¬ 
tions system for distributing the cluster 
lessons to remote locations. Ap¬ 
proximately 200 cluster lessons and an 
additional 1,500 former PLATO lessons, 
many of which were used initially at 
Gary, are now available for distribution 
through NovaNet. Indeed, CERL offi¬ 
cials recently met with the DOL nation¬ 
al Job Corps office to discuss the 
possibility of testing NovaNet in one or 
more Job Corps centers. Due to the 
recent development of NovaNet, the 
feasibility of this approach is worth as¬ 
sessing. 


107 


PHOENIX JOB CORPS CENTER 


Introduction 


The Phoenix Job Corps Center, estab¬ 
lished in the late 1960s, is located in 
downtown Phoenix, with five sites 
throughout the city. In the central ad¬ 
ministrative office, the computer-based 
math and reading program — the focus 
of this study — is operated. Occupation¬ 
al training programs occur in four an¬ 
nexes. Phoenix is somewhat unique in 
that approximately half of the Job Corps 
members are residential -- two facilities 
have dormitories for Corps members -- 
while the remaining live in the area. 

The Center is operated by the Teledyne 
Corporation, which was the initial con¬ 
tractor. Teledyne also operates addi¬ 
tional centers located in Tucson 
(Arizona), Gainesville (Florida), Jack¬ 
sonville (Florida), Alburquerque (New 
Mexico), and Pittsburgh (Pennsylvania). 
Teledyne has operated additional Job 
Corps centers over the last two decades. 
Observers noted that the Phoenix Center 
is the "showcase" of Teledyne’s centers. 

The Phoenix Center has a contracted 
capacity of 415 Corps members. Of the 
420 currently enrolled, approximately 25 
percent are Caucasian, Mexican 
American, or American Indian, with the 
remainder Black and Asian. Between 15 
and 20 percent of the Corps members 
have limited English proficiency. Over 
the last five years, the number of Asian 
Corpsmen has increased rather dramati¬ 


cally, as the Center has developed a 
reputation for serving this population 
very effectively, especially in the 
electronics assembly training program. 

The Center administration has recently 
been decentralized to 16 separate 
departments; it provides training in 11 
occupational areas, the largest of which 
is electronics assembly, followed by 
health occupations, business and cleri¬ 
cal, retail sales, and word processing. 
Members involved in the building and 
apartment maintenance, carpentry, 
brick-laying, plastering, masonry, and 
painting trade training areas are receiv¬ 
ing on-the-job training in a three-year 
project to build a new center dormitory. 

The programs are administered by a 
Center Director and an Assistant Center 
Director, with 16 years of prior experien¬ 
ces at Phoenix, who is responsible for all 
programs. Within the central office is an 
executive secretary, an administrative as- 
sistant, employee relations ad¬ 
ministrator, Center standards officer, 
and specialist for placement, records, 
and recruitment. The Center is respon¬ 
sible for all of its placement and recruit¬ 
ment functions and does not rely on 
outside contractors or other public 
agencies. The Manager of Basic Educa¬ 
tion Programs, under the Assistant 
Center Director for Programs, super¬ 
vises 18 staff, 15 of which are instructors, 
including four for reading, three for 
math, two for GED, and one each for 



PHOENIX JOB CORPS 


108 


driver’s education, health education, 
special programs, and cultural aware¬ 
ness. 

The Assistant Center Director, 
Manager of Basic Education Programs, 
and Special Programs instructor have ap¬ 
proximately 45 years of experience in 
operating the programs at Phoenix. 

Program operations at Phoenix are 
similar to those in most other Job Corps 
centers. The student intake process 
begins with assessment and counseling, 
followed by a combination reading and 
math instruction concurrent with voca¬ 
tional training, followed by more ad¬ 
vanced training and job preparation 
activities, with work experience provided 
with local employers where possible. 
Unlike most other centers, as described 
later, the computer-based math and 
reading programs are in a separate lab 
facility rather than being integrated into 
occupational cluster training areas. Un¬ 
like other centers, Phoenix also provides 
an advanced math program, particularly 
for college-bound youths, many of whom 
have limited English experience. 

General Use Of 
Technology 

Computer-related technology is used 
extensively in the Phoenix Center for 
both management and service delivery 
purposes. Below, we describe the use in 
MIS and then some of the unique ap¬ 
plications used in math and reading in¬ 
struction. 


Management Information 
System 

During the early 1980s, as Phase 2 of the 
Education Improvement Effort (EIE), 
the Center obtained the BTI 5000 sys¬ 
tem, which is a mainframe computer net- 
work configuration and "simple" 
management information system. 
Center administrators felt the need to 
develop a much more extensive and com¬ 
prehensive MIS, which they did by hiring 
a part-time undergraduate student who 
developed the MIS program over a three 
to four year period. 

The BTI 5000 is connected, via cable 
and telephone lines, to remote sites in 
both the Phoenix and Tucson Job Corps 
Centers. Data is entered, retrieved, and 
printed at these sites. 

The data-based systems programs are 
managed by the system itself. Data struc¬ 
tures are defined in the data dictionary 
and are accessed by all programs, rather 
than defining within programs themsel¬ 
ves. This allows changes to be made to 
the data structures without requiring 
software alternations, and new systems 
can be created without reprogramming. 
The menu, for example, will adjust to 
program additions and deletions 
without the program itself needing to be 
revised, thus saving valuable program¬ 
ming time. 

The Corps member data base includes 
32 programs which can be used for 
various types of report generation. The 
Corps member master record includes 
32 data elements, ranging from Social 
Security Number to specific staff to 



109 


PHOENIX JOB CORPS 


whom he or she is assigned. While the 
MIS is used extensively to develop 
reports and/or data for transmission to 
the Job Corps Data Center, more criti¬ 
cally it is used extensively by the Center 
directors and the 16 decentralized 
departments. As a result, a number of 
custom reports can be generated from 
the data bases within the general MIS. 
These include attendance reports for 
each of the clerical area, class loads, dor¬ 
mitory head counts, the instructional 
management system reports used in the 
math program (discussed later), and per¬ 
formance management reports, among 
others. 

In addition to the general MIS data 
bases and the customized reporting, 
staff in the basic education program have 
developed numerous additional 
programs for accessing, manipulating, 
and reporting data within the MIS. For 
example, using a multi-plan package, the 
Manager of Basic Education Programs 
can generate reports on Corps members 
which include termination dates, math 
and reading gains, and GED-related in¬ 
formation and can use this information as 
a means for evaluating programs. Infor¬ 
mation is also provided to counselors 
and instructors, who can assess the 
progress of their members. In addition 
to administrative use by the manager, in¬ 
structors use general MIS and cus¬ 
tomized reports for a variety of purposes, 
including attendance, scheduling, etc. 
Within the Basic Education Program, 
seldom does one see a staff person or in¬ 
structor from one office going to another 
without a piece of paper which, in the vast 
majority of cases, is a computer printout 


generated by the MIS and/or interface 
program. 

The MIS is so integrated into program 
areas and used extensively by program 
staff that it is difficult, in many cases, to 
separate the MIS functions from the ser¬ 
vice delivery functions. This will become 
apparent in the discussion of computer 
use to score tests and generate reports 
and the math instructional management 
system. 

Center staff are planning to replace the 
existing hardware which was purchased 
over eight years ago, but will continue 
using the MIS. This will most likely re¬ 
quire extensive reprogramming and 
other conversion activities. Staff feel 
that this alternative will be very cost-ef¬ 
fective in the long run because of staff 
familiarity with the existing system and 
its capabilities. 

Reading and Math Programs 

The focus of this study is the reading and 
math computer lab, which uses a variety 
of hardware and software, much of which 
has been developed for instruction and 
interface with the general MIS. 

The computer lab is operated by the 
Special Programs Instructor, with assis¬ 
tance from a Testing Coordinator. Aside 
from being operated as a separate lab 
(rather than being integrated into oc¬ 
cupational cluster training), the 
program is operated in accordance with 
the general Job Corps manuals, guides, 
etc. Practically all Corps members 
receive some instruction in either math 
or reading, depending on identified 


PHOENIX JOB CORPS 


110 


needs. With open-entry/exit and a self- 
paced schedule, participants may receive 
instruction for brief periods of time, exit 
the program, and then come back for 
specific skill-building, test review, or 
other purposes. 

The Special Programs Instuctor, a 
former GED preparation teacher, has 
been with the Job Corps for 19 years. Al¬ 
though his formal education is in English, 
he has become extremely active in math¬ 
ematics content areas. After being ap¬ 
pointed to his current position, he 
developed programming skills and has 
become the primary instructional 
program developer. Currently, he is on 
sabbatical to the national Job Corps of¬ 
fice to provide a number of services, in¬ 
cluding: (1) using WordPerfect to 
develop a program which maintains the 
Job Corps Math Manual, to improve ease 
of updating; (2) rewriting the Job Corps 
Math Supplement, replacing an older 
version; (3) developing additional forms 
for Job Corps tests for metrics; and (4) 
conducting a needs assessment related to 
instructional management needs among 
Job Corps centers. He also serves on the 
GED Advisory Committee, which is 
recommending various changes in Job 
Corps GED programs to be consistent 
with the new GED test. He and the 
Manager of Basic Education Programs 
participated in the national CAI Evalua¬ 
tion Project by evaluating software and 
providing training to several sites. Their 
participation in these projects is one in¬ 
dication of the respect that the national 
and regional Job Corps offices have 
developed for both of these individuals. 


In addition to the services key Center 
staff individuals have provided to na¬ 
tional and regional Job Corps activities, 
Phoenix has a long tradition of participa¬ 
tion in projects supported by the Job 
Corps. For participation in the EIE 
project during the early 1980s, central 
administrative, as well as educational, 
staff were provided the stand-alone 
PLATO system, and they received addi¬ 
tional financial support for the purchase 
and implementation of the MIS. 

For a variety of reasons, as described 
later, Center staff purposely established 
a separate computer-based lab for math 
and reading instruction. Numerous in¬ 
terfaces have been developed with the 
MIS and various means of coordination 
exist between administrative staff and 
the training instructors and counselors. 

Innovative Technology 
Applications 

A number of unique applications and 
uses of technology are used at the 
Phoenix Center, particularly in the read¬ 
ing and math laboratory. 

(1) Job Corps Math Management 
System 

One of the most innovative programs is 
the Math Management System 
developed by the Special Programs In¬ 
structor in 1984. The current system 
operates on the BTI5000 network and is 
interfaced with the overall MIS. 

The Math Management System allows 
scoring of all 148 tests in the Job Corps 
Math Program (which consists of print 


Ill 


PHOENIX JOB CORPS 


and audiovisual materials, lesson plans, 
manuals, and other components) 
through an interface with Scantron test¬ 
scoring equipment. For the MJS1 (math 
screening test), it checks the tests and 
prints out the score with other scores 
from the same testing group. For the 
MJS2, it checks tests and responds with 
scores and appropriate diagnostic test to 
be taken. If a person fails the diagnostic 
test, the system responds with the score 
and code for the appropriate assignment 
checklist. For a failed unit test, the sys¬ 
tem responds with the score and a listing 
from the Job Corps Math Skills Direc¬ 
tory of each item type missed, including 
the number of questions missed. Each 
entry includes a written description and 
example and a list of materials from 
which an instructor may select a remedia¬ 
tion assignment. The system also allows 
instructors, counselors, and other staff to 
access the system and obtain the follow¬ 
ing types of reports: (a) Update Test 
Records; (b) Update Skills Directory, 
which allows the user to change the data 
in the Skills Directory; (c) Test and Scor¬ 
ing Diagnostics, which allows the user in 
input marked Scantron answer sheets; 
and (d) Change Item Type Code, which 
allows the user to change an Item Type 
Code without losing the data stored 
under that code. 

The instruction program uses 12 Com¬ 
modore 64 microcomputers, some of 
which are networked for use with Speed- 
Check, described later, and an Apple lie. 

In addition to the Apple-compatible 
software included in the CAI evaluation 
project, the Center has purchased from a 
major software publisher (Gamco) an ex¬ 


tensive array of math drill-and-practice 
programs and has access to several 
hundred public domain Commodore 
programs. Prior to the purchase of the 
Commodore configuration, drill-and- 
practice math lesson plans were 
developed by the Special Programs In¬ 
structor for use on the BTI 5000 
mainframe network. The mainframe 
terminals are now used primarily for 
MIS purposes. 

(2) PLATO Reading and Testing 
Program 

Through the EIE project, the Center 
received three CDC 110 microcom¬ 
puters , which were initially used to teach 
reading in the pilot program. More than 
800 lesson plans were available at that 
time. The CDC microcomputers and 
PLATO system wtae used primarily to 
teach certain reading skills and provide 
major test review functions for 
Corpsmembers. Virtually all of the 
limited English proficient (LEP) 
Corpsmembers initially receive Disc 1, 
designed for elementary reading (i.e., 30 
lessons that focus on word reading and 
progress to higher level reading skills). 
A student in GR (grade) level 3 might 
start on Disc 1, while a student in GR 
(grade) level 8 might start on Disc 10. 

About 70 percent of PLATO use, 
however, is for test review. For ex¬ 
ample, if a Corpsmember takes the GED 
test but does not pass, the teacher usual¬ 
ly refers the Corpsmember to the lab, 
where he or she receives additional test 
review and drill-and-practice instruction. 
After a Corpsmember has been in the 
reading program for 60 hours, he or she 


PHOENIX JOB CORPS 


112 


is usually assigned to the PLATO 
program for test review and drill and 
practice. 

The reading program does not have an 
instructional management system like 
the Math Management System described 
above. Although the regional DOL Job 
Corps office has suggested that the 
Center develop an instructional manage¬ 
ment system for reading, Center staff 
have been hesitant to develop such a 
program for use on current equipment 
because of expectations that Center 
hardware may change in the near future. 

(3) Speed Checks 

In 1985, the Special Programs Instruc¬ 
tor developed a "speed check" program 
for the Job Corps math program. Speed 
checks are used extensively in Job Corps 
centers across the country as confidence 
builders and a means of accelerating slow 
work habits. The speed check program 
operates on the Commodore 64. 

The computer program has improved 
the administration of speed checks by 
scoring the drills and maintaining neces¬ 
sary records. The software has the fol¬ 
lowing features: 

• students use a joy stick to inter¬ 
act with the computer, thus not 
requiring keyboard skills; 

• the program can be used by non¬ 
readers, requiring nonverbal 
directions; 

• the program stores test scores 
on each drill level -- the number 
of times the drill has been done 
and the date of the last drill; 


• motivational features such as 
music and graphic displays, are 
built in; 

• the program is networked for 
simultaneous use by up to eight 
students; and 

• the program provides multiple 
forms — up to 4,000 different 
forms 

(4) TABE Scheduling program 

The TABE is administered at the 
Center every 90 days. As well as during 
initial assessment and counseling. 
Center staff have developed a scheduling 
program for the administration of the 
TABE program. The scheduling 
program generates a memorandum for 
each Corpsmember, indicating the time 
and place he or she should take the test, 
how long it will take, and notes that the 
Corpsmember’s paycheck will be with¬ 
held until he or she completes the test. 
It provides reports for staff indicating the 
Corpsmember’s TABE status and the 
number of timeshe or she has taken it. 

It also provides summary reports of 
Corpsmembers’ TABE gains and can 
provide reports for Corpsmembers who 
took tests on specific dates, indicating 
percentage gain or percentage loss, total 
gains, average gains, detailed analysis, 
etc. by individual departments and by in¬ 
dividual staff. These reports are main¬ 
tained on a data base which is used 
extensively by the Manager of Basic 
Education Programs. 

In addition to TABE reporting, the 
Center has developed and uses exten¬ 
sively a program for scoring TABE 


113 


PHOENIX JOB CORPS 


results, using Scantron equipment. For 
each Corpsmember who takes the 
TABE, the system reports scores for each 
level of math computation and reading 
comprehension in grade equivalents and 
percentile rankings and presents 
detailed analyses which can be used by 
staff to focus on specific areas of weak¬ 
ness. This system provides a printout to 
each counselor and instructor to 
proscribe additional materials for 
Corpsmembers to remediate deficien¬ 
cies identified on the TABE. Staff 
believe that such a test scoring and 
reporting system is necessary to provide 
immediate feedback both to the students 
and to the counselors/instructors; it also 
provides the administration with useful 
information in assessing the relative ef¬ 
fectiveness of the math, reading, and 
GED programs. 

(5) IBM PALS Program 

Beginning in January 1988, some 
Corpsmembers are receiving instruction 
on a 14 work station IBM PALS con¬ 
figuration, which includes both 
microcomputers and videodiscs, using 
the IBM InfoWindow. Job Corpsmem¬ 
bers are assigned instruction for two and 
one-half hours per day, three days a 
week, for eight weeks. For the most part, 
Corpsmembers who receive this instruc¬ 
tion are those with low entry level read¬ 
ing skills, including a large number of 
LEP students. The cost of instruction to 
the Center is virtually zero. Center staff 
have to pay for transportation costs to 
and from the PALS site and pay for a disc 
to accompany the student. 


Benefits of Technology 
and Planned Changes 

Center staff and observers attribute a 
number of impacts to the various tech¬ 
nology applications used in Phoenix. 
Member’s monthly gains in math are ap¬ 
proximately twice as high as the national 
Job Corps average. Staff note that these 
scores are understated because the older 
version (i.e., pre-April 1987) of the 
TABE was not sensitive to gains by stu¬ 
dents who enter the program with rela¬ 
tively high entry reading levels. Most 
Phoenix Center Corpsmembers have 
high entry reading skills and tend to "top 
out" on TABE reading scores. 

In addition to technology’s impact on 
student achievement, a number of other 
positive effects have been noted by 
Center staff, including: 

• computer-based, self-placed, 
and student-directed instruction 
in the math program is not only 
educationally sound but also 
motivates both students and 
teachers as they can see the 
progress being accomplished; 
this, in turn, enhances student 
self-esteem; 

• the math management system al¬ 
lows for greater student output, 
increased student-teacher 
ratios, and increased time for 
teacher- student contact as the 
system reduces paper work and 
administrative time; increased 
teacher-student contact time is 
frequently associated with im¬ 
proved student achievement; 



PHOENIX JOB CORPS 


114 


• increased student time-on-task 
is also attributed to the use of 
the computer-based drill-and- 
practice program used in the 
management system; time-on- 
task is an important instruction¬ 
al variable; and 

• the management system and 
adapted MIS programs permit 
effective coordination between 
the education staff and the oc¬ 
cupational training instructors 
and counselors. 

Several minor problems were also iden¬ 
tified. Center staff who wish to introduce 
higher order thinking skills software into 
the math and reading program believe 
that it would be difficult to do so without 
the development of a reading instruc¬ 
tional management system. They also 
expressed concern that there is a tenden¬ 
cy to teach only those minimal com¬ 
petencies outlined in the Job Corps 
manuals, which have not been updated 
over the last ten years. They also believe 
that if the entire TABE battery could be 
used (Job Corps allows the use of only 
two components), this would encourage 
introduction of higher order thinking 
skills. They believe that the inclusion of 
critical thinking skills on new GED will 
encourage future use of CAI tutorials 
and simulations. 

On several occasions, Center staff have 
had problems getting permission from 
commercial software publishers to 
modify their software for use in the math 
management system. Some publishers 
produce software to operate only on 
stand-alone microcomputers and refuse 
to publish network versions which could 


reduce copyright protection and, hence, 
sales potential. Should the Center net¬ 
work all of its Commodores, some 
publishers may be hesitant to allow them 
to use certain software packages on the 
network. 

Since changes for the immediate future 
revolve around the MIS Center, educa¬ 
tion staff believe that the funds allocated 
to the acquisition of hardware and the 
development/conversion of the existing 
MIS software will absorb any excess dol¬ 
lars, limiting possibilities for upgrading 
the technology used in math and reading 
programs. On the other hand, the staff 
were encouraged that some oppor¬ 
tunities for using CAI in the GED 
program may be created as a result of the 
new written communications and critical 
thinking domains that have been added 
to the GED test. 

If Center staff had adequate funding, 
one of its first major changes would be to 
purchase a network with a large hard disc 
capacity to link all of the Commodore 64 
computers. They would also like to pur¬ 
chase or develop a comprehensive in¬ 
structional management system which 
could be used on a network configura¬ 
tion. Most staff believe that an instruc¬ 
tional management system, linked to the 
MIS, is important because it could 
reduce staff requirements and minimize 
duplication of data entry. The staff also 
expressed great interest in the use of in¬ 
teractive videodisc programs, such as the 
"What’s next?" program which is being 
reformatted for use on the IBM Info- 
Window. Future decisions will depend 
on the results of Corpsmembers’ use of 
PALS. 


115 


PHOENIX JOB CORPS 


Barriers to Technology 
Use 


Certain barriers to technology use have 
occurred at Phoenix, but key staff were 
successful in turning some of these 
problems into opportunities for expand¬ 
ing the use of technology. 

First, the BTI mainframe’s instruction¬ 
al component relied heavily on the MIS, 
which often received administration 
priority. Instructional staff were able to 
convince central administration that the 
BTI terminals could be freed up for use 
in MIS activities if the Center would pur¬ 
chase the Commodore computer lab. 

Second, funding to acquire instruction¬ 
al hardware had been difficult to obtain 
because instructional equipment com¬ 
petes with much larger industrial equip- 
ment purchased in the budgetary 
approval process. However, staff have 
been able to obtain instructional equip¬ 
ment through participation in such 
projects as the EIE or to obtain discounts 
through State bids and/or corporate dis¬ 
count programs or otherwise obtain ac¬ 
cess to instructional technology used in 
such other projects as PALS. 

Third, staff resistance to using com¬ 
puters for both MIS and instructional 
purposes has dissipated as individual 
staff saw the benefits accruing to them 
personally (e.g., reduced staff time, 
paper work,) and to participants. 
Moreover, Center staff believe that self- 
training not only is extremely effective, 
but also develops a sense of ownership 
which will result in effective and ap¬ 


propriate use of the technology. There¬ 
fore, the Center has not provided exten¬ 
sive in-service training, but rather allows 
ample opportunities for self-training or 
individual tutoring by knowledgeable 
Center staff. The creation of the Center’s 
instructional computer laboratory also 
minimized the need to train all occupa¬ 
tional instructors in computer use; 
rather, only the two staff who operate the 
lab required training. 

Fourth, a lack of information about 
hardware and software constituted a 
moderate barrier in the Phoenix Center. 
Most information is obtained through 
publisher catalogs, journals (e.g., T.H.E . 
Journal, Electronic Learning ), and as¬ 
sociation (e.g., AEDS, ICCE) publica¬ 
tions. Hardware information is usually 
supplied through vendors; during the site 
visit the local IBM branch office con¬ 
ducted a briefing on IBM configurations 
which could be used to replace the BTI 
5000 MIS. Center staff have been able to 
keep abreast of related developments by; 
(a) serving as software evaluators for the 
Arizona Department of Education, 
which provides them access to the 
software library maintained at the 
department; and (b) actively participat¬ 
ing on the technology advisory commit¬ 
tees for local school districts. The staff 
expressed a need for evaluations of com¬ 
mercially available software, alternative 
network configurations, and instruction¬ 
al management systems which could be 
used in Center operations. 






PHOENIX JOB CORPS 


116 


Factors Contributing to 
Success 

Factors which have contributed to suc¬ 
cess in Phoenix are both similar and dif¬ 
ferent from those contributing to success 
in other Job Corps centers. 

First, Center administration has, over 
the last decade, been a strong proponent 
of technology use, both in the MIS and 
instructional service delivery. In addi¬ 
tion to allocation funds for technology, 
they provided opportunities for Center 
staff to develop software and gave en¬ 
couraged staff to participate in national 
Job Corps research and development 
projects. 

Second, the Phoenix Center ad¬ 
ministration has received, over time, 
considerable support from the regional 
DOL office. The funds approval process 
for hardware and software purchases, 
based on mutual trust, has been very 
responsive and positive. Indeed, the 
regional office has discouraged retrench¬ 
ment of computer-based activities on 
several occasions when tight budget 
considerations were uppermost in the 
minds of Center staff and the national of¬ 
fice. It has encouraged the Center to 
develop a reading instructional manage¬ 
ment system, similar to that used in math, 
and has provided, on numerous oc¬ 
casions, constructive criticism designed 
to improve the effective use of technol¬ 
ogy in the Center. 

Third, the Center has received equip¬ 
ment for little or no cost and has other¬ 
wise benefited from its participation in 


special projects. For example, the 
original PLATO program, still used in 
the Center laboratory, was acquired 
through participation in the EIE project; 
the BTI MIS was acquired for participa¬ 
tion in a subsequent phase of that project. 
The Center purchased its Apple 
hardware under an Arizona Department 
of Education state-wide contract arran¬ 
gement, which was less expensive than 
the GSA schedule schedule price. In 
January 1988, Corpsmembers will have 
free access to the relatively expensive 
PALS program. The original Com¬ 
modore 64 equipment was purchased 
under a special education discount arran- 
gement from Commodore. While 
Center staff agree that the Center would 
likely have purchased hardware through 
"regular channels", the opportunities for 
free or discounted equipment certainly 
prompted their initial decisions to 
develop technology. 

Fourth, a number of staff considera¬ 
tions also contributed to the success of 
the program. Staff quality and stability 
have played an important role. They are 
dedicated to serving at-risk youth 
through the use of technology. Most 
have been with the Phoenix Center for 
between ten and 19 years and have 
developed the necessary expertise. Most 
of the staff have been motivated to train 
themselves to operate the MIS and in¬ 
structional programs. Indicative of this 
expertise is the fact that Phoenix staff 
were used extensively in training several 
staff who participated in the national 
CAI evaluation project at other sites. 

Fifth, the concept of using computers in 
a laboratory configuration (where 



117 


PHOENIX JOB CORPS 


Corpsmembers go to a separate facility) 
is somewhat different from the Gary 
Center, which uses computers in occupa¬ 
tional training areas. In addition to 
providing greater control over the use of 
computer, the laboratory has provided 
increased opportunities to serve students 
from all areas based on their needs. The 
scheduling packages for TABE ad¬ 
ministration and PLATO test reviews, 
developed by Center staff, can organize 
student use of the computers, focusing on 
specific needs as they are identified in 
the occupational training areas and so 
ensures more uniform implementation 
of reading and math instruction when 
compared to decentralized computer use 
in occupational areas. Moreover, the 
operation of the laboratory can rely on 
self-trained and highly motivated in¬ 
structional Center staff (thus minimizing 
the need to overcome staff resistance). 
On the other hand, Center staff acknow¬ 
ledge that the lab concept does not en¬ 
hance the integration of reading and 
math skills into occupational training 
areas and has often been cited as 
"problematic" by DOL review teams. 
However, they argue convincingly that 
the advantages of the lab concept out¬ 
weigh its limitations. 

Closing Comment 

The Center’s education staff has taken 
advantage of many opportunities some of 
which resulted in some minor problems 
which were, however, less serious than 
those at the Gary Center. They would 
like to have had additional technology 
opportunities, such as the development 
of a reading instructional management 
system. 


For other JTPA program staff consider¬ 
ing replication of the Phoenix model, 
consideration should be given to both the 
technology and the concepts followed in 
Phoenix. Conceptually, a number of im¬ 
portant procedures were followed in es¬ 
tablishing and operating a computer 
math and reading lab designed to 
facilitate occupational training, includ¬ 
ing: 

• providing opportunities for self- 
training, as staff perceived the 
need; 

• the development of instruction¬ 
al programs to interface with 
the general MIS, which, in turn, 
ensured effective communica¬ 
tion and coordination between 
the computer lab staff and in¬ 
dividual counselors and occupa¬ 
tional instructors; and 

• increased use of MIS student 
data for monitoring participant 
progress and evaluation of staff 
and program components. 

Several of the technology applications 
offer high replication potential. First, 
the Speed Check program, which is 
owned by the developer, could be used 
in other programs with access to Com¬ 
modore 64 equipment. Because the 
Speed Check program is only used peri¬ 
odically, staff believe that inexpensive 
hardware, such as Commodore 64, is ap¬ 
propriate, rather than converting to 
other operating systems. On the other 
hand, the Math Management System, 
currently on the BIT 5000, would very 
likely have to be converted to the opera¬ 
tional environments available in other 



PHOENIX JOB CORPS 


118 


JTPA programs. An MS-DOS version is 
likely to become available over time. 
CAI lessons developed for the BTI sys¬ 
tem also require some conversion. 

For a variety of reasons, including the 
relatively high cost of maintenance and 
repair, the PLATO system is not being 
used as extensively as it has been used in 


the past and is generally limited to test 
reviews and for Level 1 reading instruc¬ 
tion, particularly with LEP populations. 
Like Gary, Teledyne is currently explor¬ 
ing the feasibility of obtaining access to 
the PLATO lessons through the satellite- 
based NovaNet system, associated with 
CERL at the University of Illinois. 


119 


PATTERNS ACROSS EXEMPLARY 
TECHNOLOGY-USING PROGRAMS 


The case studies of exemplary technol¬ 
ogy-using programs support most 
preliminary findings on the barriers to 
technology use and the policy options 
previously identified by the Expert Panel 
and knowledgeable JPTA officials. The 
findings also confirmed a number of 
hypotheses generated prior to the site 
visits, as well as some of the factors con¬ 
tributing to program success and effec¬ 
tive use of technology. Below we 
summarize some of the major findings. 

Hypotheses 

Champions 

One of the important hypotheses to be 
tested was: 'The initial impetus to use 
computers and related technology came 

from an advocate who championed the 
idea both initially and then through the 
implementation process ". One or more 
champions were found in virtually every 
site, although the nature of the advocate 
and his/her role differed somewhat. At 
the two Job Corps centers, champions ex¬ 
isted at both the operational level (e.g., 
education or computer lab) and at the ad¬ 
ministrative level. In two of the three 
Title II programs, champions who advo¬ 
cated technology use were in key posi¬ 
tions within the service provider. In the 
remaining Title II site, technology advo¬ 


cates could be found within the PIC and 
the service provider, with each playing 
different roles (e.g., supporting the 
provider, raising funds from additional 
sources, generating awareness) in a 
complementary manner. In all sites, at 
least one champion had computer-re¬ 
lated expertise or access to individuals 
with such expertise. While technology 
use was risky in each site and multiple 
barriers had to be overcome, champions 
minimized risks and obstacles by: (a) ob¬ 
taining initial funding or loan equipment 
from non-JPTA funding sources, ven¬ 
dors, or partnerships which provided in- 
kind (often hardware) support; (b) 
generating a sense of ownership on the 
part of technology-using staff and/or PIC 
directors; (c) participating in national 
pilot demonstrations which provided 
free equipment; and/or (d) tying technol¬ 
ogy-using programs to state policies and 
state leadership. A corollary to this find¬ 
ing is that the JTPA system currently 
does not place priority on the use of 
technology. Neither does it provide 
necessary financial assistance (e.g., ini¬ 
tial capital investment) or have an in¬ 
frastructure for supporting technology 
implementation. The barriers which oc¬ 
curred at most sites were overcome 
primarily by the champion and the role 
he or she played. 









FINDINGS 


120 


Policy-Level Support 

Another hypothesis was that priority 
support at the policy level for technology 
use existed initially or was generated 
over time . In the vast majority of cases, 
policy support at the PIC or regional Job 
Corps office contributed to initial and 
continued use of technology. In at least 
one site, a change in leadership is having 
an impact upon the direction of the 
program, although technology use within 
the program will most likely continue at 
current or expanded levels. 

Performance Incentive 

Another hypothesis was that a program 
design with stated goals, performance- 
based objectives, and major operational 
procedures created unique opportunities 
for technology as a critical component of 
the total delivery system. In both Job 
Corps’ centers, the national Job Corps 
math and reading program designs in¬ 
cluded individualized, self-paced in¬ 
struction which is ideally suited for 
supplemental CAL They also generated 
a need for instructional management sys¬ 
tems. In the Title II programs, agree¬ 
ments between PIC’s and service 
providers were competency-based re¬ 
quiring open entry/exit, thereby creating 
a need for programs (such as the CCP) 
and related CMI-CAI systems, which are 
not only self-paced, but also student- 
directed. The program design 
developed in South Carolina encouraged 
the development and use of an instruc¬ 
tional management system which would 
allow for a variety of instructional 
software packages to be used in a sys¬ 
tematic manner which would focus on 


the state’s basic skills assessment 
program. In Milwaukee, the service 
providers’ overall program design to 
develop competencies among various 
LEP and minority participants, on an 
open-exit/entry basis, created a need for 
a multimedia configuration using both 
videodisc and microcomputer-based net¬ 
works. 

Staff Development/Support 

Another hypothesis postulated that ap¬ 
propriate levels of staff development 
and ongoing support were provided 
throughout the implementation process . 

Such support was provided by a hardware 
vendors’ providers’ national offices, 
training subcontractors, and Job Corps 
center staff. Most sites provided peri¬ 
odic in-service training. One site relied 
heavily on staff self-training and peer 
tutoring when perceived needs arose. 
Extensive follow-up support has been 
provided by vendors or subcontractors 
in all Title II programs, while, in Job 
Corps centers, a lack of vendor support 
for "obsolete" equipment has made it 
necessary for center staff to provide this 
support. In at least one case, this has be¬ 
come a serious problem. 

Effective Integration 

As hypothesized, exemplary use of tech¬ 
nology occurs when it is effectively in¬ 
tegrated into acceptable procedures, 
program designs, and curriculum objec¬ 

tives . The heart of the CCP program is 
the taxonomy of lessons correlated with 
competencies which, in turn, are mapped 
to instructional materials, including 
software. In at least one of the IBM 




















121 


FINDINGS 


sites, IBM network software has been 
mapped to the CCP competencies. In 
South Carolina, extensive staff time and 
resources were initially allocated to the 
identification of more than 800 commer¬ 
cially available software packages, which 
were then correlated to the basic skills 
objectives of the state, as reflected in the 
BSAP assessment instrument. The in- 
structional management systems 
developed by the two Job Corps center’s 
staff rely on CAI lessons, which are in¬ 
tegrated into the overall Job Corps 
management information systems used 
in the two sites. One of the Milwaukee 
service providers has developed an inter¬ 
face between the instructional manage¬ 
ment and an overall MIS which could be 
used by other centers operated by the na¬ 
tional group. 

Virtually all of the instructional staff in 
the Title II programs were certified not 
only by the service provider’s national of¬ 
fice, but also by the SEA. In other instan¬ 
ces, the instructional programs were 
certified by the state or the local school 
district with whom the program is being 
conducted. 


Other Findings 

Funding 

In the study’s findings, the majority of 
PICs and service providers indicated that 
funding levels and the unit cost standards 
were not sufficient to warrant significant 
investments in technology unless: (a) 
non-JTPA sources of funds could be 
generated to cover the shortfall for initial 
investment; and (b) funding certainty 


and stability were probable. In virtually 
all of the exemplary sites, multiple sour¬ 
ces of funding were used to capitalize the 
program initially or service providers 
were successful in obtaining equipment 
at little or no cost under vendor partner¬ 
ship programs or other arrangements. 
The Ford Foundation appears to have 
been an important source of funding for 
all of the Title II programs; several ser¬ 
vice providers are likely to be soliciting 
new funding from the Ford Foundation 
and other sources in the near future as 
they plan to upgrade and/or expand their 
programs. 

Upgrading Technoloyg 

Virtually all sites are in the process of 
modifying or expanding their technology 
configurations because: 

Certain configurations (particularly 
in the Job Corps centers) are be¬ 
coming obsolete; maintenance and 
repair costs are increasingly becom¬ 
ing a major problem. One of the 
problems confronting the innovator 
is the risk he or she takes when free 
equipment is made available and/or 
the hardware which is selected is no 
longer supported by the original 
vendor. However, as program staff 
noted, the advantages of such uni¬ 
que opportunities often offset the 
disadvantages. 

Staff at the SDA-level sites are in¬ 
creasingly focused on those par¬ 
ticipants most "at risk" and hope to 
take advantage of promising tech¬ 
nologies. For example, computer- 
assisted instruction was felt to be 




FINDINGS 


122 


most effective with LEP students in 
the Job Corps center sites; three 
Title II program sites are 
experimenting or planning to ex¬ 
periment with videodisc technology, 
particularly for participants with 
lower reading capabilities, and/or 
LEP participants. 

In the preliminary findings, increased 
use of computers interfaced with scan¬ 
ning equipment was noted. In most of 
the sites, such equipment is currently 
being used and, through the develop¬ 
ment of software programs by site staff, 
more extensive use can be expected in 
the future in such areas as: (a) entering 
participant data; (b) scoring screening 
tests; and (c) scoring mastery tests and 
prescribing lessons. 

Information Needs 

Program staff also confirmed the need 
for objective information about pilot 
program results, software evaluations, 
and related activities which would assist 
them in planning their hardware and 
software configurations. From the na¬ 
ture of questions posed by site staff 
during site visits, as well as their direct 
statements, it is also apparent that there 
is a need for technical assistance for 
SDAs and service providers in the area 
of technology use. While service 
providers indicated that their national 
corporate offices or "partners" provided 
excellent technical assistance and train¬ 
ing, they also felt that the availability of 
such assistance was limited. 

Many site officials believed that their 
informational needs would increase in 


the immediate future. In two sites, travel 
budgets for staff to attend national or 
regional conferences were being cut 
back. Several SDA staff felt that they 
would increasingly have to rely on service 
providers, hardware vendors, and local 
affiliates of national organizations for in¬ 
formation about commercially available 
software. 

Future Needs 

Even though site staff had different 
technology configurations and focused 
upon somewhat different populations, 
there appeared to be consensus across 
sites regarding future technology needs. 
Staff who use the CCP system felt a need 
for improvement in such areas as net¬ 
working work stations and developing 
appropriate interfaces between the CCP 
management system and other network 
management systems. Across sites, staff 
felt the need for additional supplemental 
materials, including CAI programs for 
use in GED programs(primarily as a 
result of the recent changes in the GED 
test) and for LEP populations. Virtually 
all staff currently without instructional 
management systems and networks 
believed a substantial need for such sys¬ 
tems. This was particularly evident at the 
Job Corps, thus confirming the recent 
survey finding that over 70 percent of Job 
Corps center educational staff felt the 
the development and/or adaptation of an 
instructional management system which 
could be used with the Job Corps math 
and reading programs was the highest 
priority need across the country. 

And finally, across sites, staff indicated 
that computer-based instructional 


123 


FINDINGS 


management systems were making sig¬ 
nificant contributions to overall program 
success. All staff agreed that individual¬ 
ized, self-paced, student-directed in¬ 
struction — with built-in participant 
incentives — is most effective with at-risk 
youth, particularly LEP populations, 
when supplemented with CAI lessons 


and a computer-based,diagnos¬ 
tic/prescriptive, student monitoring 
capability. They also felt that a 
competency-based curriculum which is 
modular in nature, with extensive 
mastery testing, is not only educationally 
sound, but also extremely motivational 
for this population. 




















































125 


References 


Education TURNKEY, Inc.. Case Study of the Implementation of P.L. 94-142. 1978. 

Education TURNKEY systems, Inc., Use of Computers in Education. March 1985. 

Packer, Arnold and Grognet, M An Experiment in the Use of Interactive Videodisc to 
Teach English for Workplace Problem Solving," January 1988. 

Packer, Arnold, "Transforming the Way Adults Learn", paper presented to the 
Society for Applied Learning Technology, Orlando, Florida, February 24, 1988. 

Stich, T., Cast-Off Youth. Prager, 1987. 

U.S. Office of Technology Assessment, Science, Education, and Transportation 
Program, Trends and St atus . o f Computers in S cho ols; Use in C h apter-1 Pro gram s 
and Use with Limited English Proficient Students . March 13,1987. 





























































127 


APPENDIX I 


LISTS OF SITE CONTACTS 











129 


LIST OF INDIVIDUALS INTERVIEWED 
AUSTIN/TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS 

December 1987 

State Representative Gonzalo Barrientos 
Penny Brimley 
Gerald Briney, IBM 

Bill Demestihas, Exec. Dir., Private Industry Council 
Gustavo Garcia, Sr., Attorney 
Dr. Robert Glover, Center for Human Resources 
Richard Haplin, American Institute for Learning 
Paul Hilgers, Administrator for Cong. Pickle 
Larry E. Jenkins, American Institute for Learning 
Irma Novoa, Johnston High School 
Arnold Rosenfeld, Austin American-Statesman 

Tina Tabler 
Sondra Whitlow 
Leroy Wormley, Jr., IBM 
Dick Young, Dick Young Productions 



130 


LIST OF INDIVIDUALS INTERVIEWED 
SOUTH CAROLINA GOVERNOR’S 
REMEDIATION INITIATIVE 

December 1987 

Governor’s Office - Executive Office of Policy and Programs 
Marion Parrish, Education Division 
Governor’s Office - Division of Employment and Training 

Jessie Byrd 
Ishmael Holly 
Janet Lockhart 
Northwestern High 
Susie Hanners, Reading Teacher 
Earl Lovelace, Principal 
Judy Tarleton, Math Teacher 
Sumter Area Technical College 

Marjorie McDonald 
Don Rogers 
Anna Strange 
Winthrop College 
James F. Fouche, PhD, Dean 
Ann Maletic 
John Rumford 
Other G.R.I. Staff 

Chris Berardi 
Jennifer Helsel 
Sovannia Patton 
Telephone Interview 
Sandy MacCaskill, former director 











131 


LIST OF INDIVIDUALS INTERVIEWED 
GARY JOB CORPS CENTER 

December 1987 

Harriet Caldwell, GED Instructor 
Jonell Cisneros, Assistant MMIS Analyst 
Danielle Davila, Data Entry Instructor 
Charles Harris, Director of Computer Learning Center 
Mary Livers, Director of Education and Training 
Idella Minor, Data Entry Instructor 
Linda Pruitt, Graded Reading Instructor 
Bobby Sanford, GED Instructor 
Doug Sheedy, Graded Reading Instructor 
Harry Stewart, MIS Analyst 
Ted Turman, Assistand Director 
Al Wiesen, Texas Education Foundation 


132 


LIST OF INDIVIDUALS INTERVIEWED PHOENIX 

JOB CORPS CENTER 

December 1987 

Pat Banks-Huckleby, Instructor, Electronics Assembly 
Jerry Carlton, Assistant Center Director 
Linda Cunningham, Instructor, Retail Sales 
Leroy Mobley, Instructor, Special Programs; Computer Lab Director 

Don Screes, Center Director 
Dale Volz, Manager, Basic Education Program 


LIST OF PRINCIPLE INDIVIDUALS INTERVIEWED 

MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN 

December 1987 

Lawrence Jankowski, Director, Milwaukee County, 

Executive Office for Economic and Resource Development 

Miguel Berry, Director, SER Jobs for Progress 


*U.S. Government Printing Office: 1988-220-940 

























































































































































NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR 8MPLOYUENT POLICY 
1522 K StrttL NW, Sul# 300 
Washington. D.C. 20005 


OFFICIAL BUSINESS 

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE. $300 


H 4 r9 ! 






























































^ ^ ** 0 « 


°* \/^\/ v®y %^W?'\/ 

„ * * O" ^ ^ ‘ 4 ' * * * °* ^ \r c^ ^p’ *> \> 


° A ' J jn O 

rS / ^ 

a g , %. 

» G° + C^ °o 

**■ 3 : 


wmw: & **. 'ew 3 . «v « 

'<••»'• A <, ♦'TVT* .0* 

• o°*°* <** „Cr ..*'•♦ 


** <^ vf ^ -AJf&MJ'* *s^ - „___, v 

*'* • ‘ * * A <* **-TV«** . 0 ^ ^ f 

^ «X'\ ^ ,(V ♦ ,l J>i*, °o 

, w ,v^w- ° -. 



A V ° 

iV oV ^ *:wv 

V' <\* *'TT^ <0 V a '•.»* A 

=o A .^sJ*. *♦ C 0 * •‘-•-♦o. 

<N * AjXmV^.* 'J' , v *j 

:*WfllBr. *<* 0 « ^V 1 . 




• ^ A* * 

o' V * 

* * A’**. w 

1 * 4 >* ** •„ 

cj>' „ • . ^<5, '"’ .... 

'o A •rfSftvIr ** c° .*1W’ °o J 

•«»'. ^ ^ • 

^ ■ w/ ' e# * A o. 


. .* •; 
f % <JL V r£* * ^ 2>’ « 

* <V^ v>. 'o . » * A 

** .‘^ a *. H 


*'...* <0 '••** A <* *'..«• .0 O. *'«•»* A <v ^TA* A v O 

, f ^o ^ ^ ^ ^ * 

* • « 0 ° A® * * ' ’ * * • • 0 ° Ap ^<j> * • » 1 * A^* Deacidified using the Bookkee 

VL/ 4 , CV *fy *'*£* '\? k C\ .0™ * f • °* V V* Neutralizing agent: Magnesiun 

4"51kV'. V' ri A*®" ♦V\^r/k‘' ^ A » l 'J^6%*. A"^ ♦’A^6 ?A,*o <> A ♦'- Treatment Dale: January 2017 

M- A :^i*. :*!•- :«•• ^ :4 PrpspruatinnTarhr 




,o ^ A 


'o . » * A 

A' o o « O 4 ^ 






, ^ ^ ^ iicauiicm Lratc, jauuaiy tul/ 

O > V t» A. 

I ^ *Z PreservationTechr 

. -A 'Tk J V A WORLD LEADER IN COLLECTIONS ( 

111 Thomson Park Driv 


> : 'Wllls^ a A «W^ ‘ A v ^. - - A'Cn i ■cocivauuiiicuii 

Ca • * W aT A * fri * A ^ 0 ‘ a world leader in collections 

^ ' «. v s ^ « v v* Vv 'O* • — - - 

<V v '7vT* js o-. "••a* a ^rvT* <g^ 

4 0 ^ . >• ' • „ A % 6 0 “ • * ftL . 

< o 1 /•'J * ^v«_ ^ .1 .m « fc _r>tv, < <{> /U i 


Cranberry Township, 

V * S 4 *q V24) 779-2111 








<9* 


^ 9 «*^** a ^ ^ A *?w* ,<*. v <*» • 4 ?j « , ^ & -%?^*r» A* 

V « <** *CT »• k A* 4 ^o A % 6 0 * 9 * <*a o^ •*■'•• ^o A s c »• • * *V n ^ . i•. 

^DV -** a c ° aS * # ^5K' *V c y ♦Wfcfc,\ ° aT »v£W. % c° 

3 KL*. ^o 8 .fifig** ’bv* .•'^k*- •'•» f -sraS** *b > 8 :<®-, «u . 0 8 ;i<Slf 

^ o * '5’Ss! * a a. . r>/52*54« £f^ • a s~\ • '■'ptSS LJsoiv • n. _/B3nW rat-v . . ~ . n4^S Ci- 



o5°^ 


» 0, V 


.v^y... v^y v^v.. <'•••• 

V * V* :|K; \/ 4fe \/ V /^'-- V, 

>: '.WW v> v % ‘.sHby v^w *- - 

'^ip *••** A *^T?r** o*’ ^ *'».»** A <f ,G* *b ‘-^.t-* A 

- 4 °o o »v % ^ 0 * 4 • k " * *o A v o • - • ♦ <s> 0 * . K ., % A> e o - a 

.v^V. ^ 1 C -V**. °--.*' i .*.’ 




9 a 0 


♦«' V--’ A A' 

r > v • »V/ 4 , c\ 





“ c*V --u 
/ ,v °.\^W * 

,o v o '*.?* a 


* AV <V . 


,v »’ ■ 9 - > V • iVL'* c\ 0 ^ ♦ * * 8 * > 

.\rv^A*o *>> A ♦VS^C. ^ ^ /.rv^/.-•<. ^ 


jsr-* a\ • 

x « Mr^-. * x v- 'r. ■.^ J * a 

<^» ' ..»* A ^ '«.»* A 



<> *'..** ,0 


.i 

■* iK o_ •? 



' o 

,0 '' f 00 ^ ^ r,# * 

^ * * * 9 ' ^ v % » • VI'* o. a * 

, 4 &a.°o •• 



.1 


^c,- 



v *-*,'*' °o 
, *> 0 .**^* 









^ W* a^ v *\ ^ a* v \> 

^ '«.* 9 A <V 4 -TVT‘ «Cr V '».?« A ^ 

k * • # ^o. JS 6 »V ♦ ^a ,d^ .* k ' 9 * a> % 0 0 " •« 

•» O * cf$STw'’. 'Co, C » ar/r??>* * o *r_ 

• ■ ° ° a 0 " *<?. ^ "V-"‘ •*^’ a° ; 'V- ^ r ° " • • ^o 1 

■ ^ ^ ^ *!^&'- V>. ^ -^Va!”. ^ > .m- ^ # •isSfA-o •%. 

.__'• ’.w’ ^ V A ^ 

v * .* ,o v A <^’ 7** *(y A ••• • a A <V* % .o v 

* • ♦ <^a * • k V! * A> c 0 " 8 ■• ^a -A . * * # * Jy o ° ‘ 9 * A . 1 * * 

^W- ^y. -cP ♦W^A. °o *‘c*5^<* ^ ^c° °o^ ^ 0 ‘*^lV- \ <c C '* 

* o 5 °^ - 0 |K 5 »* iP-n*. <£°* . 

v^-A \"v .. V^V \-^y/ %-*.T 

v ^a .o v *;••- v v s 4 *l^L> c\ *;•»> "> v N *l^r* c' 









>S' 



k vA'V -• 1 
* ** *+ ‘ 


A'V A'V 

^ *••.»•* A <* # 4 ^fv?*'. 0 ^ ^ *-•.» <' %a 

‘ • • A *o A C 9 * • ■* ^A 0^ . * 1 ' 9 ♦ A^ N c 8 “ 8 ♦ ^A 

* o ji' • r«55JW^ 8 *v» G * % ^j * o £*> • *C» 

*- iMt*;. <bS ^ o 8 ’ : 











*..o 9 ,0 


> * 

• •* <i> 

'•' * A ^ 

• < w . 

’^- A\ : - 


.“ 5.° ^ V 

•o' 5 V 

<y »• • o* O- v' »'*aV'* 'c'x 

*. ^ A» ,>W- ^ •#■ 

v r g .A ^ 



^ V 9 


% ^ a 0 V •*••**> V s O*. 

l • A * /(\ S 0 />l c *te. av * ^ 

r .ft 



■J' V 






: W 

1 * 4*^ 11 * <t? •&, *» ** * A^ 

™ . Q t, , x - - * <L V d* • 4 » * . ^ v* » <?. v <#. • 4 >5 4 

'o.T 9 A <* 4 'TTT» ,o v '*.*♦ A <> *7*• * ,0^ ^ '«•** A 

* * * ”^0 . G * 0 9 • 4 <^x fO** • k * * * O xA c 8 9 * • ^*A 0^ ♦ k ' • 4 ^O X G C 0 " * 



































